JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. With the help of the present application made under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, namely, the Management of Maijan Tea Estate, has sought for issuance of appropriate Writ(s) setting aside the award, dated 7.12.2002, passed, in Reference Case No. 12/1998, by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh, whereby the learned court below has held that the Management is not justified in dismissing the workman, namely, K.D. Bhattacharjee, from service and has directed accordingly the workman's reinstatement with lull back wages. 2. I have heard Mr. P.C. Deka, learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, and Mrs. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman. 3. Presenting the case on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Deka, learned senior Counsel, has submitted that the findings, recorded by the learned court below to the effect that the Management was not justified in dismissing the workman, is a finding, which is incorrect, wholly improbable and perverse inasmuch as these findings appear to have been reached without taking into account the relevant pieces of materials on record and are wholly against the weight of the materials, which were available on record. 4. Resisting the writ petition, Mrs. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the workman, submits that the dismissal of the workman was wholly illegal and the reasons, assigned in the impugned award for interfering with the dismissal of the workman, are in consonance with the relevant materials on record. In such circumstances, contends Mrs. Bhattacharjee, the impugned award may not be interfered with. In support of her contention that the award, in question, needs no interference, Mrs. Bhattacharjee also places reliance on the decisions of Savita Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. Dyes & Chemical Workers's Union, (1999) 2 SCC 143 , and Manager (In-Charge), Kuhum Tea Estate v. State of Assam and Ors., 2007 (2) GLT 965. 5. Before coming to the question as to whether the impugned award requires interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 read with Article 227, it may be pointed out that a finding of fact, reached by a labour court, cannot be interfered with unless the writ court finds that the finding is wholly incorrect or completely erroneous and/or that the finding is perverse. A perverse finding is one, which is not supported by materials on record or is wholly against the materials on record or by ignoring wholly an indispensably relevant material on record or by ignoring the relevant provisions of law. When a finding of fact is touched by taking into account any material, which is wholly irrelevant, or by not taking into account a material, which is wholly relevant for the purpose of arriving at a correct finding, such a finding of fact is not sustainable and must be interfered with. If, however, two views are possible to be taken on the basis of the materials placed before a labour court and the labour court has opted to choose one of such views, particularly, when the view taken is in favour of a workman, the High Court will not, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, substitute its views in place of the views, which have been adopted by the labour court. 6. In fact, even in the case of Savita Chemicals (P.) Ltd. (supra), which Mrs. Bhattacharjee relies upon, the Apex Court has clarified that unless there is patent error committed by the labour court in reaching a finding, the High Court, under Article 227, cannot interfere with the findings reached by the labour court inasmuch as the High Court does not, while sitting in writ jurisdiction, acts as a court of appeal. What is, however, of great significance to note, in the case of Savita Chemicals (P.) Ltd. (supra), is that Apex Court has held that when findings, reached by the labour court, are patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record, the High Court cannot countenance such findings of fact and must interfere in exercise of its powers under Article 227. Even in the case of Manager (In-Charge), Kuhum Tea Estate (supra), relied upon by Mrs. Bhattacharjee, the court has taken the same view of law, as in Savita Chemicals (P.) Ltd. (supra). 7. Bearing in mind the parameters of the powers exercisable by the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in respect of an award passed by a labour court, let me, now, turn to the challenges posed to the impugned award. 8. While K.D. Bhattacharjee, the workman, in question, was working in Maijan Tea Estate, he was served with a notice of show cause (Exhibit-1) dated 26.6.1996. 8. While K.D. Bhattacharjee, the workman, in question, was working in Maijan Tea Estate, he was served with a notice of show cause (Exhibit-1) dated 26.6.1996. In this notice, the accusations made against the workman read as under: That on the night of 22nd June, 1996, i.e., the early morning of 23rd June, 1996 at around 4.30. A.M. (G.T) you approached Sri Magan Naik, Sorting Sirdar and demanded that you be given some dry tea for your personal consumption to be taken to your residence when Sri Magan Naik resisted and refused to make available dry tea for your personal use without the authorization of the management, you approached Sri Ramnath Das and forced him to bring one full "Gamlah" of tea, consisting of about 8 to 9 kgs. of tea. You, thereafter, filled up your personal bag with the 8 to 9 kgs. tea. Thereafter you took this tea through the factory gate and when you were stopped by the factory gate chowkiders you misled them and told them that you had due permission from the Factory Assistant Manager. You then proceeded to steal away the 8 to 9 kgs. tea. The above, if proved constitutes an act of theft, fraud and dishonesty. 9. Responding to the notice of show cause, the Petitioner, on 28.6.1996, in his reply (Exhibit-2), as workman, stated, inter alia, thus: I deny to have taken any tea from the Maijan T.E. Factory unauthorisedly. Therefore your allegation is unfounded and untenable. Further, I very strongly believe that the entire contents of your above letter is absolutely fabricated and Mr. A.C. Das, the Factory Assistant, appears to have played prime role in fabricating the same. (emphasis is supplied) 10. From a bare reading of the reply submitted by the workman, what becomes abundantly clear is that the workman did not deny the fact that he had taken a bag full of tea from the Maijan tea factory; what he had denied was that he had taken the bag full of tea 'unauthorisedly'. In the face of the limited denial by the workman, what was really required to be determined by the domestic enquiry was as to whether the taking away of the tea, in question, by the workman was with authority or without authority. In the face of the limited denial by the workman, what was really required to be determined by the domestic enquiry was as to whether the taking away of the tea, in question, by the workman was with authority or without authority. A domestic enquiry, convened in this regard, clearly held the Petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and submitted a report accordingly. This report having been accepted by the Management, the Management dismissed the workman. A dispute was, then, raised and this dispute led to the making of a reference to the learned labour court. The 'reference' reads as under: (1) Whether the management of Maijan T.E., P.O. and Distt. Dibrugarh, Assam, are justified in dismissing their workman Sri K.D. Bhattacharjee, from services with effect from 4.17.1996? (2) If not, whether the workman is entitled to re-instatement with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof? 11. The 'reference', thus, required adjudication of two issues, namely, as to whether the Management was justified in dismissing the workman from service and if not, whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof? 12. Both the management as well as the workman submitted their written statements in the 'reference'. In their written statement, the management clearly reiterated their accusations, which had laid the foundation for the 'domestic enquiry'. In his written statement, the Union did not specifically deny the allegations levelled again the workman inasmuch as the written statement of the Union did not deny allegation of the workman having taken away 8 to 9 kgs of tea 'unauthorisedly', What the Union submitted, on the factual aspects of the case, was that since the allegation, made against the workman, was to the effect that he had taken away 8 to 9 kgs. of tea, the accusation was based on approximation and, hence, allegation, so made, was totally baseless. 13. In the case at hand, it is also necessary to point out as to how the learned labour court has dealt with the issues. In order to correctly appreciate the question as to whether the impugned award needs interference, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case, as noted by the learned labour court, and the reasons assigned by the learned labour court for holding that the management has concocted a false case against the workman. In order to correctly appreciate the question as to whether the impugned award needs interference, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case, as noted by the learned labour court, and the reasons assigned by the learned labour court for holding that the management has concocted a false case against the workman. The relevant portion of the impugned award are reproduced hereinbelow: 5. I have perused the evidence on record. Shri A.C. Das (MW-1) was the Asstt. Manager at the factory on the day of occurrence. At about 4-00 am on his return to the factory from home he was told by Ranjit Karmakar that the delinquent by showing him ext. 14 took away one bag full of tea from the factory. Magan Naik (MW-2) deposed that the delinquent asked Haranath to fill one 'Gamla' with tea and the delinquent left the factory with the 'Gamla' full of tea. Ranjit Karmakar (MW-3) deposed that on the day of occurrence he was on duty as Chowkidar at the factory gate. The delinquent handed him over a slip which is marked as Ext. 14 and he took away a bag full of tea from the factory. Nitai Kurmi (MW-4) deposed that he was not present at the time of occurrence of theft at the factory. He was told by Ramnath (since deceased) that the delinquent took away a 'Gamla' full of tea from the factory. Since Mura (MW-6) deposed that he was working as Chowkidar in the tea estate. One day he was told by Ranjit Karmakar (MW-3) that the delinquent removed some tea from the factory by delivering a slip to him. 6. On perusal of the statements of the management's witnesses it appears that the statements of the witnesses are contradictory. According to MW-1, the delinquent removed a 'Gamla' full of tea from the factory. MW-4 was also informed by Ramnath (since deceased) that the delinquent removed a 'Gamla' containing tea from the factory. But MW-3, the Chowkidar caught the delinquent with a bag full of tea at the factory gate. He allowed the delinquent to leave the factory with the bag on production of the gate pass Ext. 14. Surprisingly enough that MW-3 found no 'Gamla' containing tea in the possession of the delinquent. Moreover, according to MW-3 the delinquent delivered him Ext. But MW-3, the Chowkidar caught the delinquent with a bag full of tea at the factory gate. He allowed the delinquent to leave the factory with the bag on production of the gate pass Ext. 14. Surprisingly enough that MW-3 found no 'Gamla' containing tea in the possession of the delinquent. Moreover, according to MW-3 the delinquent delivered him Ext. 14 which according to him was the gate pass and as such he allowed the delinquent to leave the factory premises along with the tea. But according to ext. 7 this Ext. 14 was handed over to Binod Mura (MW 5). On receipt of which Bimal Mura allowed the delinquent to leave the factory with the tea. But according to the statements given by MW-6 in the court, he was not present at the factory gate on the day of occurrence. He came to know about the incident from MW-3 only. 7. The entire management's case is so cloudy that it is very difficult to find out the truth from the cloudiness of the management's evidence. Had it been a true case of theft there would have no cloudiness on the management's evidence. From the evidence of management side it appears that the management had concocted a false case against the delinquent for the best reasons known to the management itself. 8. In the light of the above discussions, I come to the conclusion that the management is not justified in dismissing Shri K.D. Bhattacharjee from the services with effect from, 4.11.1998 and accordingly he is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. 14. While considering the final decision, which the learned labour court reached it is pertinent to point out that the learned labour court proceeded, as the impugned award reflects, on the assumption that the workman had denied the accusations made against him in toto; whereas, as already indicated above, it was not the case of the workman, while replying to the charges levelled against him, that he had not taken away the tea at all; what the workman had contended was that his taking away of the tea was not 'unauthorized'. 15. The limited question for determination, therefore, was, if I may reiterate, as to whether the workman had the requisite authority to carry away the tea, in question. The burden, thus, rested on the workman to show that he had carried the tea with authority. 15. The limited question for determination, therefore, was, if I may reiterate, as to whether the workman had the requisite authority to carry away the tea, in question. The burden, thus, rested on the workman to show that he had carried the tea with authority. No such authority could be, admittedly, shown by the workman in the domestic enquiry. Thus, the enquiry report, holding the Workman guilty of the charge, could not have been interfered with by the learned labour court. 16. Coupled with the above, what is worth pointing out is that the learned labour court appears to have disbelieved the taking away of tea on the ground that according to the evidence given by MW-2, the workman had asked Ramnath to fill one 'Gamla' (i.e., pot) with tea and loft the factory with 'Gamla' full of tea; whereas (MW)3-stated that the workman had carried away a bag full of tea and not 'Gamla' full of tea. The question, now, is if there was really such a contradiction as the learned labour court, has pointed out. While considering this aspect of the case, it needs to be noted that the narration of the facts, as recorded by the learned labour court itself, at Para 2, clearly indicates that after having obtained one 'Gamla' full of tea, weighing about 8 to 9 kgs. of tea, the workman had put the tea in his personal bag and took the bag, with such tea, to the factory gate and also misled the Chowkidar (PW-3) by saying that he was carrying the tea with the permission of the Assistant Manager, Sri A.C. Das. It was, thus, not the case of the management not was I here any statement made by any of the management witnesses, that the workman had carried the tea, in question, in a 'Gamla' when the workman stood accused of having carried a bag full of tea, he, having filled up the bag with tea from the Gamla, no Gamla could have been found in the possession of the workman and he was, therefore, allowed to leave the factory gate with a bag full of tea on production of the gate pass. 17. 17. It is, thus, clear that the learned labour court completely failed to notice the fact that the evidence given against the workman was that he had obtained the Gamla full of tea, put the tea into his personal bag and had carried the same. In such circumstances, the fact that MW-3 claimed to have caught the workman with a bag full of tea cannot be said to be unfounded or concocted. Thus, the finding, reached by the learned labour court to the effect that the workman was not caught, while carrying tea, is wholly against the evidence on record. 18. What is, now, of utmost importance to note is that in his reply to the notice of show cause, the workman, as already indicated above, had contended to the effect that he had the authority to carry the tea, which ho (workman) had produced at the gate. The authority was claimed to have been given by the Assistant Manager of the factory, Sri A.C. Das. Mr. Das, however, denied to have given any such authority and contended that his signature appearing on the pass (i.e., authority letter) was not genuine. In such circumstances, no evidence, having been adduced to prove that the said pass contained the signature of A.C. Das, it was crystal clear that the workman had carried the tea away without any authority; rather, the carrying away of the tea was on the basis of a fabricated authority. 19. The above aspects of the case appear to have escaped the attention of the learned labour court. In such circumstances, the finding, reached by the learned labour court, cannot but be regarded as patently incorrect and perverse. Such a finding of fact cannot but be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227. 20. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out, the impugned award, dated 7.12.2002, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. In consequence thereof, the dismissal of the workman is upheld and he is hereby held not entitled to receive any relief. 21. Send back the LCR. Petition allowed