ORDER The management is before this Court challenging the award in favour of the workman whereby petitioner had been directed to reinstate the workman with 60% back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. 2. The facts are as follows.- The respondent-workman who charge-sheeted on the allegations that he has caused loss to the property of the petitioner's establishment and that on 21st July, 1995 when the respondent was on duty from 10.00 p.m. of 21-7-1995 to 7 a.m. of 22-7-1995, he was working on the upper and lower lobbies of the petitioner's establishment, at about 6.30 a.m. on 22-7-1995 the respondent was working along with 2 other room boys. All the three were instructed to attend to a room which had been vacated. The respondent while returning from the pantry, had taken a can of Harpic which is a strong chemical used for cleaning water closets and had poured the same on a red co10ured carpet of the first floor leaving thick stains to an extent of 65 metres stretching the entire length of the corridor of the first floor. The petitioner-management had taken a serious view of the situation since the hotel was being inspected by a team of inspectors from the Tourist Development Corporation on the very next day, for reclassification of the hotel and it is this which magnified the gravity of the act on the part of the respondent and it is in this background that the charge-sheet was issued. The respondent however denied the charges. An enquiry was held and the petitioner had examined several witnesses in support of the charges. One of the witness was M.W. 2-Prashanth Kumar who had, by a letter marked as Exhibit M. 5, disclosed that he was working along with the respondent on the said day when the incident had occurred and wherein he had stated that he was present in the lobby when the respondent took up the can of chemical and saw him pouring the liquid over the carpet to damage the same and the said witness having questioned the respondent as to why he did it, the respondent had simply smiled. However, when the said witness was questioned by the Personnel Manager in the first instance, he had not revealed this incident which he had witnessed and it is only after a change of mind, as on 4-8-1995, that this was narrated and a letter had been given by him in Kannada language. The same is duly singed by the witness. Since an English translation was felt necessary, an English translation was made immediately and he had also signed the said English translation which is also on record. At the time of evidence however, the witness had sought to negate what was said by him and he was treated as a hostile witness. There was no cross-examination. Thereafter, the said witness was fielded as a witness on behalf of the respondent and has been extensively cross-examined by the petitioner -management and it is brought out in the course of cross-examination that he had in fact signed the letter produced as Exhibit M. 5, and an English translation, Ex. M. 6. However, he denied the contents of the same. The witness also did not disclose at whose instance any such letter was written though it was written in Kannada language or that and there was undue pressure exercised on him by anyone to write such a letter. Under this circumstance, the Labour Court had proceeded to consider the evidence of other witnesses and has held that none of the witnesses were eye-witness to the incident. Since the witness M.W. 2, had turned hostile and since he had not been cross-examined and therefore it should be deemed that the documents sought to be relied upon in support of the charge ought not to be taken into account and it is on this basis the Labour Court had found that the charges were not proved and had directed reinstatement. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner Sri J. Kanikraj would highlight this aspect, namely, that the said witness M.W. 2-Prashanth Kumar has not denied that the letter is duly signed by him at Exhibit M. 5 which discloses that he was witness to the incident. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner Sri J. Kanikraj would highlight this aspect, namely, that the said witness M.W. 2-Prashanth Kumar has not denied that the letter is duly signed by him at Exhibit M. 5 which discloses that he was witness to the incident. This itself would indicate the pressure that he was facing in relation to the incident and subsequent to that, at the stage of evidence, in view of the inexplicable admission that it was signed by him but the contents were negated, which are circumstances which have been dealt with reference to strict rules of evidence. The Labour Court was dealing with the proceedings in a domestic enquiry and strict rules of evidence, as would be applicable to a criminal trial, ought not to have been insisted upon by the Labour Court. What was material was the strong probability of the case as could be made out and in the facts and circumstances and in cases of this nature, to hold that the charges have not been established for paucity of evidence of an eye-witness was not fair. The finding of the Labour Court was wholly arbitrary and perverse. The Labour Court has glossed over the circumstance of M.W. 2 having at one point of time declined that respondent had committed this act of misconduct and possibly at the pressure and influence of the respondent had sought to retract the same half-heartedly. This has been construed by the Labour Court as a circumstance to exonerate the respondent and therefore, would plead that given the meticulous standards that the petitioner would require to maintain at its establishment, the present respondent being foisted on it in the face of such conduct, which is not completely beyond suspicion. The award of the Labour Court would necessarily Warrant interference. 4. Per contra, Counsel for the respondent would submit that the findings of the Labour Court are findings of fact and it cannot be said that the findings are arbitrary or capricious, and ought to be sustained. But the finding that there are no eye-witnesses to the acts of misconduct on the part of the respondent, is a material finding and the allegations sought to be resisted on circumstantial evidence could not be held to have established the charges made against the workman. But the finding that there are no eye-witnesses to the acts of misconduct on the part of the respondent, is a material finding and the allegations sought to be resisted on circumstantial evidence could not be held to have established the charges made against the workman. He would further contend that Exhibit M. 5 which is sought to be relied upon as being a declaration of one of the workman who allegedly witnessed the incident, who has retracted the same and since the said witness had been treated as a hostile witness has not been cross-examined, it could not be held that the charge were proved on the basis of M. 5 or the statement of the eye-witness, M.W. 2. Though mere suspicion ought not to be taken as proved unless there was other plausible evidence in support of the allegations and coupled with this, respondent is a workman who was awarded the ''Best Room Boy" certificate by the petitioner itself and this is a relevant factor in considering the alleged act of misconduct against the respondent. Further, even if this Court were to take a different view or form a different opinion on the facts and circumstances, it does not warrant super imposing its opinion on the action of the Labour Court, as the same is a reasoned award based on findings of fact. He would further plead that the workman is a family man and is in dire financial straits and any order of termination would cause hardship and injury. The fact that the workman has been reinstated pending this writ petition and has been discharging his duties with the petitioner without any further complaint and therefore this Court should temper its order with mercy if in the event this Court were to take a different view on the facts and circumstances. 5. On these rival contentions, the reasoning of the Labour Court in holding that the witness who had turned hostile has not been cross-examined and that there were no eye-witnesses, has overlooked the fact that the said witness who has been examined as a witness for the delinquent-workman and has been cross-examined in the proceedings. He has admitted the execution of M. 5 and he has not stated that there was pressure from any person at whose instance the same was written. He has admitted the execution of M. 5 and he has not stated that there was pressure from any person at whose instance the same was written. The fact that there was no explanation as to the circumstances under which the same was written and sought to be indicated has been glossed over by the Labour Court. The Labour Court could not have imported the strict rules of evidence as would be applicable to a criminal trial, in considering the facts and circumstances in a domestic enquiry and the circumstances that the petitioner's establishment is a five star hotel of repute and was concerned with the impeccable maintenance of the establishment with utmost discipline amongst its workmen, has taken a strong view of the act of misconduct which possibly would not be viewed with the same gravity if it was committed in any other establishment engaged in other activity. This again is the circumstance which has been overlooked by the Labour Court and the fact that the management stood to lose its classification as a hotel by virtue of an inspection team visiting the hotel on the very next day was yet another circumstance which has been lightly overlooked by the Labour Court. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal as has been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in the circumstances, could not be held to be disproportionate to the act of misconduct. Even the circumstance and the fact that the respondent was awarded the "Best Room Boy" certificate would not absolve the act of misconduct which could be said to be probable in the circumstances of the case. 6. The approach of the Labour Court is found wanting in several respects as stated above. Hence, the petition is allowed and award is quashed.