JUDGMENT : Amareshwar Sahay, J.-In this appeal, the appellant i.e. the Management of Amlabad Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited has challenged the order dated 9.12.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 5750 of 2005 whereby, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Management against an Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal NO.1, Dhanbad by which an order of dismissal of the workman Eqbal Alam, Fan Operator, Amlabad Colliery from the service was set aside holding it to be not justified and thereby directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 2. The facts in short are that the concerned workman Eqbal Ram, Fan Operator, Amlabad Colliery was on duty on 22.7.1992 in the second shift at NO.2 Pit Fan House, at about 9:00 P.M., he left the place of his work on the plea that he was going to take tea but he did not return for duty till the end of his shift. The Post Commandant, CISF, Amlabad informed the Management that on information of theft, he visited the place with few C.I.S.F. personnels at NO.1 Pit and found that the concerned workman alongwith a few others were cutting cables. The concerned workman, seeing the CISF Personnels, ran away alongwith his associates but the CISF personnels caught hold of him with one piece of stolen cable. They were handed over to the Police. On account of the above misconduct committed by the concerned workman, he was placed under suspension and he was charged under the various paras of the Certified Standing Orders. The concerned workman filed his reply to the charge-sheet and thereafter, a domestic inquiry was held by the Deputy Personnel Manager. On behalf of the Management, witnesses were examined and the concerned workman cross-examined those management witnesses. Thereafter, the concerned workman also examined himself as well as a witness denying the allegations. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and on the basis of the said report, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 4/5.12.1992, dismissed the concerned workman from the service. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent-Union raised an Industrial Dispute upon which, conciliation was taken up but since it did not materialise, a failure report was submitted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and on the basis of the said report, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 4/5.12.1992, dismissed the concerned workman from the service. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent-Union raised an Industrial Dispute upon which, conciliation was taken up but since it did not materialise, a failure report was submitted. Thereafter, the appropriate Government, by order dated 8.4.1994, referred the following dispute for adjudication:- "Whether the action of the Management of M/s BCCL, Bhowra Area in relation to Amlabad Colliery in dismissing the workman Sri Ekbal Mia, Fan Operator from the service w.e.f. 5.12.1992 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?" 4. On receipt of reference, the Industrial Tribunal issued notices to the respective parties whereupon written statements and rejoinders etc. were submitted by the parties. 'The main plea taken by the concerned workman in his written statement was that on 22.7.1992, he was in second shift duty. There was no arrangement for drinking water at the work site and he was badly feeling thirsty and therefore, he went to a nearby Tea Stall/Hotel belonging to one Nirmal Singh Sondhi. He asked for drinking water from the Tea Stall and as soon as he finished drinking water, some C.I.S.F. personnels arrived at the shop and detain d him on the charge that he was one of, those thief who were cutting cable in the colliery and thereafter handed over him to the Police. According to the workman, neither anybody had seen him participating in the theft of cable in any manner nor any theft material was recovered from his possession. He further took the plea that the domestic enquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice since he was not provided full opportunity to make his submission against the charges. The Management, in its written statement, contended that the domestic enquiry held was fair and proper and after following the principles of natural justice. On the basis of the material on record, the enquiry officer found the concerned workman guilty resulting his dismissal from the service. 5. Though the workman raised a preliminary issue regarding fairness of the domestic enquiry but subsequently on his concession by an order dated 20.9.2002, the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and in accordance with principles of natural justice. 5. Though the workman raised a preliminary issue regarding fairness of the domestic enquiry but subsequently on his concession by an order dated 20.9.2002, the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and in accordance with principles of natural justice. Thereafter, on final adjudication, the Industrial Tribunal, by the impugned Award dated 22nd May, 2005, held that the action of the Management of M/s BCCL Ltd., Bhawra Area, in relation to dismissing the concerned workman from service was not justified and he was entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits and accordingly, direction was made to the Management to reinstate the workman with full back wages and other consequential benefits w.e.f. the date of his dismissal from the service. 6. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the Management challenged the said Award of the Industrial Tribunal by filing the Writ Petition before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge at the stage of 'Admission' itself after noticing the fact that for the similar charges, a criminal case was instituted against the concerned workman and he was acquitted by the Criminal Court and further that the workman had already attained the age of superannuation. The learned Single Bench observed that he did not find any reason to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal It is this Order of the learned Single Judge passed in the Writ Petition which is under challenge in this memo of appeal. 7. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Management submitted that once the Tribunal found that the domestic enquiry was valid and legal and once it was conceded by the Union that the enquiry was fair and proper, then in that case the Tribunal gets a limited jurisdiction in the matter. The Tribunal cannot thereafter proceed to record a finding that the charges against the employee were not proved. Elaborating his arguments, he submitted that the Tribunal cannot sit over the order of the Disciplinary Order of punishment as an appellate authority. Mr. Mehta further submitted that the Industrial Tribunal could not have upset the findings of the domestic enquiry wherein the charges against the concerned workman was found to be proved. The Indus. trial Tribunal could not have reappraised the entire evidence as an appellate Court. It was further contended by Mr. Mr. Mehta further submitted that the Industrial Tribunal could not have upset the findings of the domestic enquiry wherein the charges against the concerned workman was found to be proved. The Indus. trial Tribunal could not have reappraised the entire evidence as an appellate Court. It was further contended by Mr. Mehta that acquittal of the workman in a criminal case would not amount to automatic setting aside the order of dismissal. The standard of proof in a criminal case is high but in a proceeding, it is not. Lastly he submitted that the order for payment of back wages depends on various factors but without considering the same, the Tribunal has ordered for reinstatement of the concerned workman with full back wages and consequential benefits. In support of his submission, Mr. Mehta has relied on the decisions in the cases of Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. Prakash Chand Jain [1969 Lab. I.C. 1380= AIR 1969 SCC 983], Management of M/s Usha Breco Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur and Ors. [2005 Lab. I.C. 986: 2004(3) JCR 149 (Jhr.)] [.: 2005(2) JLJR 690 ], Cholan Roadways Ltd. vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam [ (2005)3 SCC 241 ], Union of India & Anr. vs. Bihari Lal Sidhana [ (1997)4 SCC 385 ], Haryana State Electronics Development Corpn. Ltd. vs. Mamni [ (2006)9 SCC 434 ], Allahabad Jal Sansthan vs. Daya Shankar Rai & Anr. [ (2005)5 SCC 124 ]. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Union, by relying on the decisions, in the case of Workmen of F.T. & R.Co. vs. The Management [AIR 1973 SCC 1227], M/s Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer [1990(2) PLJR 797(F.B.)] and in the case of Cawnpur Sugar Works vs. State of Bihar [1984 PLJR 813] submitted that Section 11.A of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers a Labour Court or the Tribunal to go into the evidence and to reappraise the same to come to its own conclusion, as to whether the findings recorded by the domestic enquiry was proper or not and as to whether guilt or otherwise of the concerned workman has been established and as to whether the misconduct has been proved. 9. The first decision cited on behalf of the appellant in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chand Jain [1969 Lab. 9. The first decision cited on behalf of the appellant in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chand Jain [1969 Lab. I.C. 1380= AIR 1969 SC 983 ], in which it has been held that when an Industrial Tribunal is asked to give its approval on an order of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, it can disregard the findings given by the enquiry officer only if the findings are perverse. The test of perversity is that the findings may not be supported by any legal evidence at all. It has also been held that there are two cases where the findings of a domestic Tribunal like the Enquiry Officer dealing with disciplinary proceedings against a workman can be interfered with. These two are cases in which the findings are not based on legal evidence or are such as no reasonable person could have arrived at on the basis of the materials before the Tribunal. In each of these cases, the findings are treated as perverse. In para-7 of this judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal cannot sit in judgment over view taken by the Enquiry Officer about the value to be attached to the evidence of witnesses. 10. The second decision cited on behalf of the .appellant is in the case of Management of M/s Usha Breco Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, labour Court, Jamshedpur and Ors. [2005 Lab. I.C. 986: 2004(3) JCR 149 (Jhr.)] [: 2005(2) JLJR 690 ]. While dealing with Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Court held that once domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was found to be legal and valid by the Labour Court, it cannot subsequently reconsider whether the findings of the domestic enquiry were correct or sustainable or not. In such circumstances, it can exercise jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only to consider whether on charges proved, punishment awarded was not reasonable or was too harsh. 11. The third decision cited on behalf of the appellant is the case of Cholan Roadways Ltd. vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam [ (2005)3 SCC 241 ]. It has been held by the Supreme Court in this case that the jurisdiction of Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) is limited and cannot be equated with under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 11. The third decision cited on behalf of the appellant is the case of Cholan Roadways Ltd. vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam [ (2005)3 SCC 241 ]. It has been held by the Supreme Court in this case that the jurisdiction of Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) is limited and cannot be equated with under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. While considering grant of approval to dismissal under Section 33(2)(b), the Tribunal is required to see whether prima facie case is made out as regards validity of domestic enquiry keeping in view that dismissal would be liable to challenge in terms of the Act. It was further held in the said decision that the standard of proof required in domestic enquiry vis-a-vis criminal trial, is absolutely different whereas in the former ''preponderance of probability" would suffice, in the later ''proof beyond all reasonable doubt" is imperative. 12. The fourth decision cited by the appellant is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Bihari Lal Sidhana [ (1997)4 SCC 385 ] wherein it has been held that acquittal in criminal case does not entitle to automatic reinstatement because disciplinary action can be taken after acquittal. Mere acquittal does not automatically give right to be reinstated in service. It is open to the appropriate competent authority to take decision whether the delinquent Government servant can be taken into service or disciplinary action should be taken under the relevant disciplinary or temporary service rule. It was held that reinstatement of a person who is accused of misappropriation of public money is not proper though he is acquitted of criminal charges. 13. The fifth decision of the Supreme Court cited on behalf of the appellant in the case of Haryana State Electronics Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Mamni [ (2006)9 SCC 434 ]. The Supreme Court, in this case, after noticing the fact that 14 long years having elapsed after termination, in such circumstances even if reinstated the incumbent; would not be regularized and further that since there was no material on record to show that the incumbent was not working during that period, it was held that instead of reinstatement with full back wages, compensation should be awarded. 14. The last decision cited on behalf of the appellant is the case of Allahabad Jal Sansthan vs. Daya Shankar Rai & Anr. 14. The last decision cited on behalf of the appellant is the case of Allahabad Jal Sansthan vs. Daya Shankar Rai & Anr. [ (2005)5 SCC 124 ] in which the Supreme Court held that no law in absolute terms would be laid down in which the Industrial Tribunal would be entitled to grant the relief of reinstatement with back wages. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Several factors are required to be taken into consideration there-for. 15. Now let us come to the decision cited on behalf of the respondent-Union. The first decision cited on behalf of the respondent is the judgment in the case of Workmen of F.T. & R.Co. Vs. The Management [ AIR 1973 SC 1227 ] [particularly paragraphs 32, 33, 37 and 45]. In this decision, the Supreme Court has held that even where the dismissal of workman by an employer on the ground of misconduct is preceded by a proper and valid domestic enquiry, Section 11-A now empowers the labour Court or the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and examine the correctness of the findings thereof. Section 11-A further empowers it to interfere with the punishment and alter the same. The mere fact that no enquiry or defective enquiry has been held by the employer does not by itself render the dismissal of the workman illegal. The right of the employer to adduce evidence justifying his action for the first time in such, a case is not taken away by the proviso to Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 16. The second decision is the Full Bench decision of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of M/s Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer [1990(2) PLJR 797(F.B.)] wherein it has been held that insertion of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not to limit the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which it possessed by virtue of the law laid down by the Supreme Court but it was inserted to confer power on the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry and to grant appropriate relief to a workman, powers which the Tribunal did not possess earlier. It has further been held that Section 11 A, Proviso, the right of a workman to adduce evidence before the Tribunal to make out a case of bias, want of good faith or victimization or unfair labour practice has not been taken away by insertion of this section. However, there is a bar against receiving fresh evidence while reappraising evidence in the domestic enquiry, on the Tribunal. It has further been held that it is now well settled that the power of the labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal is although wide, it can interfere with the findings of the domestic enquiry only on assigning cogent and sufficient reasons. It has further been held that prior to insertion of Section 11-A, the labour Court or Tribunal could interfere with the action taken by the management only if principles of natural justice were violated or the findings were perverse or if victimization mala fide or unfair labour practice on the part of the management was alleged. 17. Now coming to the facts of the present case, we find that there is no dispute of the fact that the propriety and fairness of the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper by the Tribunal as the representative of the concerned workman conceded on the said points. 18. After hearing the parties and on taking into consideration the decisions cited by the parties, which has already been discussed above, it boils down that no doubt Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and come to own conclusion in order to adjudicate and answer the reference as to whether the action of the management in dismissing the workman was justified or not. 19. In the present case, the Tribunal, on reappraisal of entire evidence on record, has come to his own finding that the management was not able to prima facie establish that the concerned workman was seen cutting cable and that he was chased and arrested. The Tribunal found that finding of the enquiry officer that the charge has been established, was not correct. 20. For arriving at aforesaid findings, the Tribunal has scrutinized the whole evidence and materials on record afresh. The Tribunal found that finding of the enquiry officer that the charge has been established, was not correct. 20. For arriving at aforesaid findings, the Tribunal has scrutinized the whole evidence and materials on record afresh. In our view, the Tribunal has committed error of jurisdiction in scrutinizing the whole evidence afresh like a Trial Court which was not permissible in view of the decision of the Supreme Court already discussed hereinabove wherein it was held that only in cases of perversity, findings of the domestic Tribunal can be interfered whereas, the Tribunal has not held anywhere in his Award that any finding of the domestic enquiry was perverse. 21. We further find that upsetting the findings of the domestic enquiry by the Tribunal would further come under the teeth of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Management of M/s Usha Breco ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur and Ors. [2005 Lab I.C. 986, 2004(3) JCR 149 (Jhr.)] [: 2005(2) JLJR 690 ], wherein it has been held that once domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is found to be legal and valid then the Tribunal/Labour Court can only exercise jurisdiction under Section 11-A to consider whether on charges proved, punishment awarded was reasonable or was too harsh. Therefore, we find in the present case that the Tribunal has exceeded in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act by upsetting the findings on facts of the domestic enquiry, which was found to be valid and proper at an earlier stage. 22. In our view, the learned Single Judge has wrongly dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with in view of the fact that the workman was acquitted by a criminal court. As we have already noticed above, Supreme Court has already held that the acquittal in a criminal case does not tantamount to automatic setting aside of the order of dismissal from service. 23. In view of the discussions and findings above, this appeal as well as the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2005 dismissing W.P.(L) No. 5750 of 2005 as well as the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 27.5.2005 in Ref. No. 86/94 are hereby set aside. 23. In view of the discussions and findings above, this appeal as well as the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2005 dismissing W.P.(L) No. 5750 of 2005 as well as the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 27.5.2005 in Ref. No. 86/94 are hereby set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.