ORDER B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court answering the particular reference in favour of the workman who was dismissed from service pursuant to a domestic enquiry. 2. The petitioner-Tea Estate is engaged in business of cultivation and production of tea, and for the purpose, it has to engage a large number of workmen. The particular workman namely, Ms. Kosten Taramoni was dismissed from employment for alleged gross misconduct on November 15, 1978. She was charge-sheeted for committing the misconduct during the working hour. The allegation levelled against her was that on October 24, 1978, she had reported late for duty in S.No. 14 at 8.55 a.m., which was beyond the scheduled time of reporting for duty. The Woman Mohurer told her that since she had come late, there would be no work for her on that day. Defying the order of the superior authority, she started plucking tea leaves and at about 1. p.m., she abused and assaulted the Woman Mohurer with her umbrella and created disturbance. Since the allegation against the workman falls within the definition of gross misconduct under Clause 10(a)(7) of the Sanding Orders of the petitioner Tea Estate, the Manager issued a charge-sheet dated January 25, 1978 and also suspended the workman from work. 3. In response to the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted her explanation denying the charge and the same having been found not satisfactory the management of the Tea Estate decided to hold a domestic enquiry in respect of the charge. In the enquiry, the charge was found to have been established and accordingly, the management dismissed the workman from service by Annexure B order dated November 14, 1978. 4. At the time of dismissal of the workman, a reference was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Assam at Dibrugarh and accordingly, the management, as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Tribunal Act 1947, made an application before the Tribunal for the approval of the said action against the workman. The application was registered and numbered as Industrial Tribunal Case No. 21/1978. The workman appeared in the proceeding and resisted the application for approval. The Tribunal held the domestic enquiry to be bad in law and consequently, heard the application on merit. Before the Tribunal, the management, examined altogether 7 (seven) witnesses in support of the action against the workman. The application was registered and numbered as Industrial Tribunal Case No. 21/1978. The workman appeared in the proceeding and resisted the application for approval. The Tribunal held the domestic enquiry to be bad in law and consequently, heard the application on merit. Before the Tribunal, the management, examined altogether 7 (seven) witnesses in support of the action against the workman. The workman examined herself and another witness in her defence. Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, vide order dated June 5, 1984, came to the finding that the workman had assaulted the Woman Mohurer on the particular day and that there was no victimization of the workman. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted its approval as was sought for by the management. Such approval was granted on June 5, 1984. 5. Making a challenge to the aforesaid approval granted by the Tribunal vide order dated June 5, 1984, the workman had approached this Court by filling the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1383/1989, but the same was subsequently withdrawn by her. Accordingly, the order of the learned Tribunal attained its finality. However, the Government, after a lapse of more than 5 years, vide notification No. GLR/427/89/11 dated November 20, 1989 referred the dispute of dismissal of the workman for adjudication of the Labour Court, Assam at Dibrugarh. The issues referred to the Labour Court are as follows: (1) Whether the Management of Daisajan Tea Estate, P.O. Talap were justified in terminating the services of Smt. Kosten Taramoni, a workman? (2) If not, is the workman is entitled to, reinstatement with back-wages or any other relief in lieu thereof? 6. It is the case of the petitioner that since the dispute regarding the dismissal of the workman had already been adjudicated upon by the learned Tribunal on merit, there is no question of making a further reference by the Government same barred by the principles of res judicata. Further stand of the petitioner is that the reference having been made after so many years of dismissal of the workman, same was bad in law being stale. 7. The petitioner-Tea Estate responded to the proceeding before the Labour Court in respect of the said reference, which was registered and numbered as Reference Case No. 19/1989. Further stand of the petitioner is that the reference having been made after so many years of dismissal of the workman, same was bad in law being stale. 7. The petitioner-Tea Estate responded to the proceeding before the Labour Court in respect of the said reference, which was registered and numbered as Reference Case No. 19/1989. In the written statement filed by the management, a specific plea was taken that the Industrial Tribunal having already approved the dismissal on merit and that the reference being a stale one, same having been made after lapse of 12 years, the order of reference itself is incompetent and liable to be rejected. As regards the merit of the case, the management supported its action towards dismissal of the workman in the circumstances of the proven misconduct. 8. In the written statement filed by the workman, it was contended that on the date of occurrence of the incident, she had usually reported for duty, but the said Woman Mohurer did not allow her to perform duty alleging that she was late. According to her, she raised protest against such action and on such protest, she was assaulted by the said Woman Mohurer with the Exercise Book in her hand. She further stated in the written statement that she had reported the matter to the Manager but to no result. 9. In the proceeding before the Labour Court, the management examined 4 (four) witnesses in support of the order of dismissal. On the other hand, the respondent-Union representing the workman, examined her and-one Trade Union leader. On conclusion of the hearing, the Labour Court by its impugned judgment and award dated December 26, 2001 answered the issues. In the aforesaid reference in favour of the workman with the direction to reinstate her in service with full back-wages. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-Tea Estate has filed this writ petition. While entertaining the writ petition by order dated April 24, 2002, it was provided that the aforesaid award dated December 26, 2001 shall remain suspended subject to payment of a sum of Rs. 750 per month to the workman till disposal of the writ petition. Such provision was made as per the provision of Section 17(b) of the Industrial Tribunal Disputes Act. 10. 750 per month to the workman till disposal of the writ petition. Such provision was made as per the provision of Section 17(b) of the Industrial Tribunal Disputes Act. 10. While it is the case of the petitioner that the learned Labour Court has passed the award with perverse finding and no evidence at all to support the case of the workman, it is the case of the workman and for that matter, the union, that the award having been passed, considering the matter in its entirety, the writ Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit on appeal over the finding arrived at by the learned Labour Court. 11. I have heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A.N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned Counsel representing the workman through the respondent union. I have also gone through the records of the I Tribunal as well as the Labour Court. Learned Counsel for the parties referring to the evidence on record and the aforementioned factual aspects of the matter argued in support of their respective case. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner, pursuant to a domestic enquiry held by the management of the petitioner-Tea Estate was dismissed from service vide Annexure-B order dated November 14, 1978. The approval thereof was also accorded by the learned Industrial Tribunal by its order dated June 5, 1984. While granting the approval, the Tribunal had adjudicated upon the merit of the case. In the proceeding before the Tribunal, the management had examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses while the defence examined 2 (two) witnesses. After the approval was granted, the matter attained its finality. The challenge made to the approval so granted by the Tribunal also yielded no result inasmuch as the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1383/1989 filed by the workman against the approval granted by the Tribunal, was withdrawn by her. 13. It will be pertinent to mention here that although the dismissal order was passed on November 14, 1978 and the approval thereof was accorded by the Tribunal on June 5, 1984, the workman approached this Court by filing the writ petition after long 11 years and 5 years respectively. However, she did not press the writ petition and the same was withdrawn. However, she did not press the writ petition and the same was withdrawn. Thus, the matter relating to dismissal of the 5 workman attained its finality. However, the issue was reopened in 1989 when the Government by its aforesaid notification dated November 20, 1989 referred the dispute raised by the union/workman in connection with the dismissal from service for adjudication of the Labour Court. 14. Issue No. 1 under the reference, which has been quoted above, does not specify the date of dismissal of the workman. The issue is simply to the effect as to whether the management was justified in terminating the services of the workman. As to when she was terminated from service, has not been indicated in the issue. It is in this context, the dismissal of the workman being in the year 1978 vide Annexure-B order dated November 14, 1978, the reference was so made after 11 years of such dismissal. Further, such reference was also after the issue was adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. On perusal of the impugned award, it appears that all these aspects of the matter, which were raised by the management in the written statement have not been discussed by the learned Labour Court. 15. Learned Labour Court while discussing the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the Mohurer (M.W.1) was abused by the workman and was also hit with an umbrella. It has also been found that as soon as she (workman) tried to hit for the second time, she was caught by the Chowkidar namely, Krishnabanu, The testimony of M.W.1 was fully corroborated by two other independent eyewitnesses namely, M.W.2 and M.W.3. It is the finding of the Labour Court itself that although these witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by the workman, but their testimonies remained unchanged. The particular observation and the finding of the Labour Court is quoted below: Phani Dutta (MW-1) deposed that on a certain day while she was taking weighment of tea at about 1.00 p.m. the workman came and demanded her to take the weighment of her leaves which he refused to do so on the ground that on that day she was absent. Then the workman abused her and hit her with an umbrella. Again as soon as she tried to hit her for second time she was caught by the 4 Chowkidar Krishnabanu who took her away from the spot. Then the workman abused her and hit her with an umbrella. Again as soon as she tried to hit her for second time she was caught by the 4 Chowkidar Krishnabanu who took her away from the spot. The testimonies of MW-1 was fully corroborated by the two other independent eye-witnesses such as MW-2 and MW-3. All these three witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by the counsel of the workman. The testimonies of these three witnesses remains unchanged. 16. After recording the aforesaid finding in the award, the learned Labour Court believed the story of the workman that it was not possible for her to examine any other workman in her favour as none would come forward to depose against the management. With such a belief, the Labour Court thought it prudent to seek corroboration of the case of the workman from other sources. It is in this context, the Labour Court referred to the complaint lodged by the workman before the management against the Mohurer. In the complaint, the workman had stated that on October 24, 1978, the Mohurer refused to give her work and abused her with filthy language. She also refused to weigh the tea leaves plucked by her and assaulted her with the Hazira Book. Upon a reference to this complaint and the contents thereof, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that although the complaint dated October 25, 1978 was lodged by the workman, but the management decided not to take any action against the said Mohurer, but on the other hand, started proceeding against the workman in respect of her alleged misconduct. 17. It is only with the aforesaid conclusion reached and taking into account the statement of the workman, the learned Labour Court has come to the finding that the workman too was assaulted by the Mohurer. The finding of the Labour Court is that since the workman was assaulted by the Mohurer first, she had to strike back and assault the Mohurer as there was grave and sudden provocation to take recourse to take such action. It is also the finding of the Labour Court that had there been a thorough enquiry in respect of the complaint lodged by the workman, truth would have come out. 18. It is also the finding of the Labour Court that had there been a thorough enquiry in respect of the complaint lodged by the workman, truth would have come out. 18. It is with the aforesaid finding in the impugned judgment and award dated December 26, 2001, the direction issued is for reinstatement of the workman in service with full back-wages. The incident had occurred on October 24, 1978, in which the workman assaulted the Mohurer at the work site. Such misconduct on her part led to her dismissal from service pursuant to a domestic enquiry. Being not satisfied with the domestic enquiry, the Industrial Tribunal, from whom the approval was sought for, conducted further enquiry and on the basis of such enquiry and reconsideration t of the matter on merit, the Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal by granting the approval, which had been prayed for by the management. 19. The learned Labour Court, in spite of categorical finding that the Mohurer was assaulted and abused by the workman and that the evidence of MW. 1, MW. 2 and MW. 3 could not be dislodged in their cross-examination, passed the impugned award solely relying on the complaint lodged by the workman on October 25, 1978 i.e. on the next day of the incident, occurred on October 24, 1978. Firstly, the workman came late for duty on October 24, 1978. Defying the order of the 2 superior authority not to pluck tea leaves, she started plucking tea leaves and at about 1.00 p.m. when she was disallowed to deposit tea leaves, she not only abused the superior authority but also assaulted the person with the umbrella. It is only on the next day i.e. October 25, 1978, she lodged the complaint. Incidentally, it is on the same day i.e. October 25, 1978 the workman was charge-sheeted. It is in this context, Mr. Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint was an afterthought. 20. Even if the complaint was lodged by the workman on October 25, 1978, the Labour Court ought not to have believed the contents thereof without any supporting material. As against the solitary statement of the workman supporting the complaint, 3 (three) management witnesses with their corroborating' statements proved the charge levelled against the workman, the fact which has been admitted by the Labour Court itself. As against the solitary statement of the workman supporting the complaint, 3 (three) management witnesses with their corroborating' statements proved the charge levelled against the workman, the fact which has been admitted by the Labour Court itself. It is a case of giving more weightage to an individual complaint lodged by the charge-sheeted-workman than the unrebutted testimony of the 3 (three) management witnesses. It is solely on the basis of the said complaint, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that it was the Mohurer, who had first assaulted the workman and the workman in retaliation and out of grave and. sudden provocation hit back the Mohurer with an umbrella. No independent witness has supported the version of the workman. Learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the fact that there was no immediate complaint lodged by the workman i.e. on the date of incident which was on October 24, 1978 and that the complaint was lodged only on October 25, 1978, on which date, the charge against the workman relating to her misconduct on October 24, 1978 was levelled in writing. 21. I have gone through the entire records. It appears that the Mohurer, who was assaulted by the workman intimated the management of the Tea Estate about the incident occurred on October 24, 1978 and to that effect, lodged written complaint on the same day. On the other hand, the workman lodged the complaint only on the following day i.e. October 25, 1978. It is already in the finding of the Labour Court that all the 3 (three) management witnesses proved the incident with which the workman was involved. 22. In the deposition made by the workman, she had not even stated that she had retaliated due to the assault with the Exercise Book by the Mohurer. According to her statement, she did not do anything. In her cross-examination, she had admitted that she had no bad relationship with the Mohurer and that never before there was any misbehaviour on her (Mohurer) part. She admitted in her cross-examination that the workmen are required to work as per the order of the superior authority i.e. Sardar/Mohurer. Although in her cross-examination, she named many persons, who were allegedly present at the site but she examined none. 23. W.W.2. is not an eye-witness but only a reporting witness. She admitted in her cross-examination that the workmen are required to work as per the order of the superior authority i.e. Sardar/Mohurer. Although in her cross-examination, she named many persons, who were allegedly present at the site but she examined none. 23. W.W.2. is not an eye-witness but only a reporting witness. He in his deposition stated that about 20 years back, the workman had come to him and reported about hitting her by the Mohurer with the Exercise Book. W.W.2. belongs to another tea estate other than the one in which the workman had been working. In his cross-examination, he stated that the distance between two tea estates is 11 kilometres and that the workman had come to him at about 12 noon on the date of the incident. 24. Above statement of W.W.2 does not tally with the case of the workman. As per the charge sheet, the incident occurred at about 1 p.m. on October 24, 1978 to which there was no denial on the part of the workman. All the M. Ws supported the case of the management. It was never a case of the workman that the incident occurred before 1.00 p.m. The charge sheet having indicated the specific time of the incident as 1 o'clock, the workman could have refuted the same. But she did not. Interestingly, in her complaint lodged on October 25, 1978, she herself stated that the incident took place at 1 p.m. If the incident took place at 1 p.m., it is not understood as to how she could report the same to W.W.2. at 12 noon and that too, after traveling a distance of about 11 kilometers. Thus, the statement of W.W.2 is not at all believable. 25. Assaulting the superior officer by a subordinate staff during the course of employment cannot be viewed lightly. Any amount of indulgence to such an act would lead to indiscipline and chaos in the management of affairs of the employer. Even assuming that the version of the story of the workman that she was first assaulted by the Mohurer with the exercise book is correct, she could have taken recourse to the kind of assault meted out to the Mohurer, a fact which has been proved in evidence adduced by the management witnesses and found favour of the Labour Court. Even assuming that the version of the story of the workman that she was first assaulted by the Mohurer with the exercise book is correct, she could have taken recourse to the kind of assault meted out to the Mohurer, a fact which has been proved in evidence adduced by the management witnesses and found favour of the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court could not have returned the finding that the act on the part of the workman was due to grave and sudden provocation as a result of assault on the part of the Mohurer and that what she did was as a measure of retaliation. If at all any such assault was there on the part of the Mohurer she ought to have reported the incident then and there to the authority, instead of making out a story about which discussions have been made above. She could not have taken the law into her own hands. As stated above, such a story on her part is also not believable as the same is not borne by records and belied by her own evidence. 26. The above being the position, the finding and conclusion recorded in the impugned judgment and award are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. That being the situation, the impugned judgment and, award dated December 26, 2001 passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference Case No. 19/1989 is liable to be set aside and quashed, which I accordingly do. 27. The writ petition is allowed, without, however, any order as to costs. It is made clear that the salary, which the workman has already received pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court shall not be recovered from her. Petition allowed