Judgment :- M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The second respondent management is the appellant and aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge allowing of the writ petition filed by the first respondent, has filed this writ appeal. 2. The first respondent had joined the services of the appellant on 9. 1973 in the tops cutting department as Topscutter. The appellant management has issued a show cause notice dated 17. 1991 alleging that he did not perform the workload of 13 sets per day in the Topscutting department as per the terms of Section 12(3) settlement dated 13.01.1991 under Industrial Disputes Act. It is further alleged that in view of the non performance of the workload, the first respondent had committed misconduct as per Clause 23(k) and (s) of the appellant companys Standing Orders. The first respondent was issued with show cause notice as regards the said conduct and he has submitted his explanation dated 27.07.1991. 3. Enquiry Officer was appointed and during the course of enquiry, the management examined two witnesses and marked three documents. On behalf of the first respondent/delinquent, no witness were examined and no documents were marked. The Enquiry Officer in his findings held that the charge against the first respondent has been proved. Thereafter, the appellant/management issued a second show cause notice dated 012. 1991 which was replied by the first respondent on 212. 1991. The appellant management on a consideration of the explanation submitted to the second show cause notice and the report of the enquiry officer, has passed an order of dismissal from service on 212. 1991. 4. The first respondent raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.155 of 1993 and the appellant management has filed its counter statement. 5. The Labour Court, Coimbatore vide Preliminary Award dated 3. 1996, has upheld the order of dismissal passed by the management and vide Award dated 25.04.1996 directed the appellant/management to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-to the first respondent and challenging the vires of the said Award, the first respondent has filed the writ petition which was admitted. The appellant management who was arrayed as second respondent has filed its counter statement contending among other things that the award passed by the Labour Court warrants no interference as it has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidences in a proper perspective manner. 6. The appellant management who was arrayed as second respondent has filed its counter statement contending among other things that the award passed by the Labour Court warrants no interference as it has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidences in a proper perspective manner. 6. This Court has passed the final order on 25.08.2005 in the writ petition holding that the stand taken by the management that the revised norms which was fixed after Section 12(3) settlement were informed to the first respondent/writ petitioner and the appellant/management has failed to discharge the burden that the revised norms were actually communicated to the workers and particularly to the writ petitioner. Therefore for the said reason, the award passed by the Labour Court was set aside and the writ petition was allowed. The second respondent management in the said writ petition, aggrieved by the said order has preferred this writ appeal. 7. Heard Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. M.K. Kabir, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Labour Court has taken into consideration, the oral testimonies of M.Ws. 1 and 2 and also Exs. M1 to M18 and held that the revised norms as per Section 12(3) settlement dated 13.01.1991 were communicated to the first respondent and in spite of having such a knowledge, he continued to perform his duties as per the old norms and in spite of opportunities being given to him, he has failed to increase the productivity and therefore after scrupulously following the principles of natural justice, and affording all opportunities to the first respondent, an order of dismissal came to be passed. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that this Court cannot act as a appellate forum to re-appreciate the evidence and therefore the impugned order allowing the writ petition is liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, Mr. M.K. Kabir, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the appellant management has miserably failed to prove that after 12 (3) settlement, the revised norms were communicated/informed to the first respondent so as to enable him to increase his productivity. 9. Per contra, Mr. M.K. Kabir, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the appellant management has miserably failed to prove that after 12 (3) settlement, the revised norms were communicated/informed to the first respondent so as to enable him to increase his productivity. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent that since the findings of the Labour Court are based upon the non appreciation of evidence, this Court has rightly interfered in the said award and allowed the writ petition and therefore, the learned senior counsel prayed for the dismissal of the writ appeal. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent. 11. The first respondent in response to the show cause notice dated 17. 1991 has submitted his reply on 27.07.1991 stating that he was not informed of the revised workload and that the revised workload has not been properly fixed. That apart, it was further submitted by the first respondent that since he is actively involved in the Trade Union activities, the management is wrecking vengeance upon him by initiating the disciplinary proceedings. 12. During domestic enquiry, the management examined M.W.1 who was working as an Executive, Human Resources Department and as per his testimony a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was reached on 13.01.1991, wherein it has been agreed to fix workload in three departments viz., Tops Cutting, Studer and Service Station by conducting a time study and thereafter to implement the said decisions. A copy of the Section 12(3) settlement was marked as Ex.M1. M.W.1 further deposed that a study was conducted by the experts of Coimbatore Productivity Council, in the above said three departments between March 1991 and June 1991 and after fixing the workload based on the time study, workers representatives were informed of the revised workload and also to the concerned workers orally as per the normal practice prevailing in the company. The first respondent herein was also informed of the same and it has been indicated that he should perform the revised workload from 01.07.1991. The study report conducted by the Coimbatore Productivity Council was marked as Ex.M2 and a vernacular copy of the same was also supplied to the first respondent on his request. The first respondent herein was also informed of the same and it has been indicated that he should perform the revised workload from 01.07.1991. The study report conducted by the Coimbatore Productivity Council was marked as Ex.M2 and a vernacular copy of the same was also supplied to the first respondent on his request. A copy of the show cause notice issued to the first respondent is Ex.M3. 13. A perusal of the enquiry report would reveal that in spite of opportunities given to the first respondent to cross examine M.W.1, he Was not cross-examined. The appellant/management to prove the fact that the first respondent was informed of the revised work norms had examined one S. Arumugham as Management Witness No.2. M.W.2 deposed that he was working as Machine Operator in the Spark Erosion Department and was also the Assistant Secretary of the Anna Workers Union of the appellant company. He further deposed that from June 1990 till November 1990 settlement talks were going on between the representatives of the management and the workers regarding the salary and the said talks ended in failure. Thereafter, the workers went on strike and subsequently the talks were held which resulted in the settlement under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act on 13.01.1991, wherein it has been decided that the management would conduct a time study in the above said three departments and afterwards, would fix the workload. After the report of the Coimbatore Productivity Council, the workload was revised and he along with the other representatives of the Union had also informed of the concerned workers about the workload and the first respondent herein was also informed about the new workload to be done by him from 01.07.1991. The first respondent has also not cross-examined M.W.2 in spite of affording opportunity. The Enquiry Officer after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences has held that the first respondent is guilty of the charges framed against him. 14. Thereafter, the appellant/management communicated the said findings of the said Enquiry Officer and issued a show cause notice on 012. 1991 calling upon him to offer his explanation, for which the first respondent has given his explanation on 212. 1991. The appellant management on a perusal of the explanation and the enquiry report, has passed an order of dismissal on 212. 1991 calling upon him to offer his explanation, for which the first respondent has given his explanation on 212. 1991. The appellant management on a perusal of the explanation and the enquiry report, has passed an order of dismissal on 212. 1991 against which, the first respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.155 of 1993 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore. 15. One other workman viz., Muthusamy, who was also dismissed from service on account of non performance of revised norms also raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.156 of 1993. 16. I.D.No.155 of 1993 pertaining to the first respondent as well as I.D.No.156 of 1993 pertaining to Muthusamy were tried together by the Labour Court, Coimbatore. During the course of enquiry, Exs.L1 and L2 came to be marked on behalf of Muthusamy and on behalf of the management Exs.M1 to M18 were marked. Muthusamy examined himself as L.W.1 and on behalf of the management one Ravikumar was examined as M.W.1. On the side of the first respondent herein no documents were marked and no witnesses were examined. The Labour Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidences found that in spite of opportunities given, M.Ws. 1 and 2 were not cross-examined and that the evidence of M.W.2, who happened to be an Assistant Secretary of the Union would clearly establish that the revised norms of workload made known to the first respondent. The Labour Court further found that except first respondent and Muthusamy, all other workmen had undertaken the new workload and are performing their duties. Therefore, the Labour Court found that the order of dismissal passed by the appellant management is proper, but directed the appellant/management to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the first respondent who is the petitioner in I.D.No.155 of 1993 and a sum of Rs.30,000/- to Muthusamy, who is the petitioner in I.D.No.156 of 1993. 17. The learned judge while disposing of the writ petition proceeds on the footing that evidence of M.W.1 is not at all sufficient to discrete the positive stand taken by the first respondent herein that he was never informed about the revised norms. 17. The learned judge while disposing of the writ petition proceeds on the footing that evidence of M.W.1 is not at all sufficient to discrete the positive stand taken by the first respondent herein that he was never informed about the revised norms. The learned judge further found that the burden heavily on the management to establish that the revised norms were actually communicated to the workers and particularly to the writ petitioner and in the absence of any documentary evidence it is not possible to sustain the claim of the management that the workers were informed about the revised norms. Therefore, for the said reasons, the learned judge has allowed the writ petition. 18. We are of the considered opinion that the said findings given in the writ petition are unsustainable. M.W.1 has spoken about the 12(3) settlement dated 13.01.1991 and also the time study conducted by the Coimbatore Productivity Council regarding the revision of work norms and also a report of the said Council fixing the revised work norms. The documents were also marked as Exs.M1 and M2 before the Enquiry Officer. M.W.2 is the Assistant Secretary of the Labour Union who categorically deposed that after the work norms were revised, the workers were informed of the revised work norms including the first respondent. The fact remains that in spite of opportunities given to the first respondent to cross-examine both witnesses, he has not chosen to cross-examine them and therefore, their oral testimonies remain un-contraverted. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture the first respondent in reply to the show cause notice, has also taken a stand that the fixation of revised norms has not been correctly done. 19. The Labour Court has taken into consideration the enquiry report marked as Ex.M15 and other exhibits and also the testimonies of M.W.1 held that the enquiry has been held properly and opportunities were given to the first respondent to defend the proceedings in a fair and proper manner and held that the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent management is sustained. 20. 20. Since the testimonies of management witnesses have not been tested by cross-examining them, their testimonies remain un-contraverted and apart from the testimonies, documentary evidences had also established that the first respondent in spite of having knowledge of the revised work norms, has not chosen to adhere to it and also took a stand that the revised work norms are not proper. 21. In our considered opinion, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court cannot act as an appellate forum to re-appreciate the evidence. Of course, this Court can interfere in the findings of the Labour Court as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer if those findings on the face of it, shown to be perverse or based upon no evidence. However, in the case on hand, the appellant management has categorically established their oral and documentary evidences that the first respondent was guilty of misconduct by not adhering to the revised work norms in spite of having knowledge of it. That apart, the Enquiry Officer also found that except the first respondent and another workman viz., Muthusamy, all other workers had adhered to the revised work norms. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order allowing the writ petition, is liable to be set aside. 22. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order dated 28. 2005 passed in W.P.No.3482 of 1997 is set aside and the award dated 25.04.1996 passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.155 of 1993 is confirmed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.