JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - In this writ application the Petitioner challenges the award dated 19.06,2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore-Koraput in Industrial Disputes Case No. 11 of 2004 converting the order of his dismissal from service to termination of service & payment of dues payable to him. The award was passed in answer to the following reference made u/s 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Whether the termination of services of Sri Bhikari Nayak, Watchman by the Management of M/s. D.A.V. Public School, Gandhinagar, Berhampur with effect from 10.07.2003 is legal &/or justified? If not to what relief is Sri Nayak entitled to? 2. Petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a peon in D.A.V. Pubic School, Berhampur in the year 1989 & his service was regularized in the year 1995. Due to illness he had availed leave from 06.11.2001 to 21.11.2001. While on such leave, Petitioner was arrested on 16.11.2001 in connection with G.R. Case No. 1022 of 2001 for alleged commission of offence u/s 420 of the I.P.C. instituted in connection with dispute relating to transaction in land with one Dr. Naveen Kumar Rath. In such circumstances, Opposite Party placed the Petitioner under suspension by issuing suspension Order Dated 17.11.2001, which is Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition, on the ground that he was taken to police custody. Simultaneously, notice dated 17.11.2001, which is Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition, was issued by the Opposite Party to the Petitioner directing him to me show cause as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him on the following charges: You had been under the influence of alcohol heavily on 10th October, 2001 at about 4.45 p.m. during the office working hours. You were brought to your residence, which is in the school premises, held by two people & you were reported to have been dead drunk. Your such action amounts to misconduct. It has also been reported that you had been arrested by the police on 16th November, 2001 & sent to judicial custody for criminal offences alleged to have been committed by you. This also amounts to misconduct. Petitioner filed show cause, which is Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition, denying the charges. Your such action amounts to misconduct. It has also been reported that you had been arrested by the police on 16th November, 2001 & sent to judicial custody for criminal offences alleged to have been committed by you. This also amounts to misconduct. Petitioner filed show cause, which is Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition, denying the charges. By letter dated 10.02.2003, which is Annexure- 4 to the Writ Petition, the Petitioner was informed by the Opposite Party that his explanation to the charges being unsatisfactory, a domestic enquiry would be held. Accordingly, domestic enquiry was held, & enquiry report, which is Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition, holding the Petitioner guilty of misconduct of coming to school in alcoholic & drunken condition during school hour & of being involved in criminal case, was submitted to the Opposite Party. By Order Dated 10.07.2003, which is Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition, Opposite Party passed order of dismissal of the Petitioner from service of the school with immediate effect by paying one month's salary. On receiving the order of termination, the Petitioner submitted representation, which is Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition, to the Opposite Party for reinstatement & sent a copy thereof to the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Conciliation proceeding before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. having failed, a failure report was submitted to the State Government, upon which the above said reference was made to the Labour Court. It is averred by the Petitioner that Learned Labour Court passed the award illegally in a mechanical manner without adhering to the principles of natural justice. It is contended that Opposite Party has no jurisdiction to terminate the Petitioner from service as he was appointed by the Managing Committee, D.A.V. College, New Delhi. Allegation that he came to this school in alcoholic & drunken condition is false & concocted. His arrest in the criminal case made in connection with dispute relating to land transaction when the Petitioner was on leave does not constitute a ground for initiation of disciplinary proceeding. Neither any charge- sheet was served on the Petitioner nor copy of the enquiry report was made available to him. Domestic enquiry was conducted in an irregular manner. His arrest in the criminal case made in connection with dispute relating to land transaction when the Petitioner was on leave does not constitute a ground for initiation of disciplinary proceeding. Neither any charge- sheet was served on the Petitioner nor copy of the enquiry report was made available to him. Domestic enquiry was conducted in an irregular manner. Though no evidence worthy of acceptance was produced by the Opposite Party either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Labour Court in support of allegations made against the Petitioner, Learned Labour Court passed the impugned award mechanically without appreciating materials on record & in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party it has been averred that initially the Petitioner joined as a watchman in the school. A quarter situated in the school premises was allotted to him. His wife is also working in the school as a peon. Though the Petitioner was an employee of the school, he was simultaneously engaged in real estate business. Also, he used to take alcohol while on duty. On 10.10.2001 at about 4.45 P.M. the Petitioner was found to have taken alcohol while on duty. Being asked to explain his conduct, the Petitioner gave a written undertaking, which was marked as Ext. 'B' in the Labour Court, not to take alcohol in future. The Petitioner was arrested in connection with a criminal case on 16.11.2001. In such circumstances, Petitioner was placed under suspension & asked to show cause as to why disciplinary proceeding would not be initiated against him. Show cause filed by the Petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. Therefore, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry on conclusion of which enquiry report dated 25.02.2003 was submitted. Though Opposite Party sent copy of the enquiry report to the Petitioner by post as well as through school peon, the Petitioner did not receive the same. In such circumstances, order of dismissal was passed It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the Learned Labour Court recorded the evidence adduced by the parties before passing the impugned award. As per the rules the Principal of D.A.V. School is the competent authority to take action against Class-IV employees. Domestic enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner after service of copy of charge-sheet & receipt of explanation thereto. As per the rules the Principal of D.A.V. School is the competent authority to take action against Class-IV employees. Domestic enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner after service of copy of charge-sheet & receipt of explanation thereto. The Enquiry Officer had given all opportunities to the Petitioner during enquiry. That apart, Learned Labour Court also provided adequate opportunity to the Petitioner to adduce evidence. Learned Labour Court passed the impugned award considering materials on record. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that domestic enquiry was not properly conducted by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Opposite Party. Petitioner was not given sufficient opportunities to adduce evidence. Allegation made against the Petitioner to have taken alcohol on 10.10.2001 is false & concocted. As the arrest of the Petitioner was in connection with dispute arising out of land transaction, it should not have been construed to be a misconduct warranting disciplinary proceeding. Learned Labour Court passed the impugned award mechanically without appreciation of materials available on record & in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. In reply, it was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party that Petitioner never disputed that he was arrested in connection with allegation of commission of offence u/s 420 of the I.P.C. So far as the allegation that the Petitioner was found to have taken alcohol while on duty on 10.10.2001, Opposite Party produced before the Learned Labour Court Ext. 'B' an undertaking in which the Petitioner had admitted to have taken liquor. As the Petitioner was working as a peon in the school, administration of which requires strict discipline, conduct of the Petitioner was not congenial to an educational institution. Enquiry report was submitted after a fair enquiry in course of which all opportunities were given to the Petitioner to explain his conduct. Notwithstanding such enquiry, Learned Labour Court also gave opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence. Opposite Party adduced evidence justifying the action of the dismissal & the Petitioner also adduced evidence to assail the same. Before enquiry charge-sheet containing the two charges was served on the Petitioner & he was given opportunity to explain his conduct. On the basis of evidence adduced before the Learned Labour Court it has been categorically held that enquiry report was sent to the workman under certificate of posting as well as through peon under Peon Book entry Ext. Before enquiry charge-sheet containing the two charges was served on the Petitioner & he was given opportunity to explain his conduct. On the basis of evidence adduced before the Learned Labour Court it has been categorically held that enquiry report was sent to the workman under certificate of posting as well as through peon under Peon Book entry Ext. 'J', but the Petitioner did not receive the enquiry report. Such finding is not available to be challenged in the writ application, Relying upon decision in Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. v. Khem Chartd and Anr. 2006 LabI.C. 3992, it was argued that once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence placed before a Tribunal, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimization. Even if no enquiry has been held by the employer or the inquiry held is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality & validity of the order, has the jurisdiction to give an opportunity to the employer & employee to adduce evidence before it. In the present case, Learned Labour having given such opportunity to the Petitioner, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned award. 6. It is well settled that a Writ of Certiorari can be issued for only correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals, i.e. where orders are passed by inferior Courts or Tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can also be issued wherein In exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, inasmuch as it decides a question without giving ah opportunity to he heard to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. 7. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction, this Court is not to act as an Appellate Court. 7. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction, this Court is not to act as an Appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that finding of fact reached by the Tribunal after appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in the writ proceedings & an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a Writ Court, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal can be interfered with by a Writ Court only if the High Court is satisfied that the Labour Court had erroneously not considered or refused to admit admissible & material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence Which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which could be corrected by a Writ of Certiorari as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others. In this connection decision in Sri Saroj Kumar Mohapatra v. Presiding Officer Labour Court. Jeypore and Anr. 2006 (Supp.-II) OLR-740 & decision in Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad and Others, may also be referred to. 8. In M/s. Amrit Vahaspati Co. Ltd. v. Khem Chand and Anr. (supra), relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parly, it has been held that when a proper enquiry has been held by ah employer, & the finding of misconduct is a plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in Judgment over the decision of the employer as an Appellate body. The interference with the decision of the employer will be justified only when the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the management is guilty of victimization, unfair labour practice mala fide. Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer, or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality & validity of the order, had to give an opportunity to the employer & employee to adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action, & it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action, & it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra. The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry is that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case. On the other hand, the issue about the merits of the impugned order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the Tribunal & the latter, on the evidence adduced before it, has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved. A case of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry. The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the evidence placed before it for the first time in justification of the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or after the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be defective. Once the miscorduct is proved either in the enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimization. In a particular case, after setting aside the order of dismissal, whether a workman should be reinstated or paid compensation is, within the judicial decision of a Labour Court or Tribunal. The High Court while exercising powers under the writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the factual findings of the Labour Court which are based on appreciation of facts adduced before it by leading evidence. 9. Considering the rival submissions & the facts & circumstances of the case, keeping the well defined scope & ambit of the writ application, it is found that there is no scope to interfere with the impugned award. Admittedly, the Petitioner was arrested in connection with his involvement in a criminal case for alleged commission of offence u/s 420 I.PC. On the basis of materials placed before it Learned Labour Court has come to the finding of fact that the Petitioner was found to have taken alcohol while on duty in school. The finding is based on oral evidence as well as Petitioner's written undertaking Ext.B. There is no substance in the contention that charge-sheet was not served on & copy of the enquiry report was not provided to the Petitioner. The finding is based on oral evidence as well as Petitioner's written undertaking Ext.B. There is no substance in the contention that charge-sheet was not served on & copy of the enquiry report was not provided to the Petitioner. Materials placed by the Opposite Party before the Learned Labour Court indicated that the Petitioner refused to receive copy of the enquiry report sent to him. No lacuna is observed in conducting the domestic enquiry. Also, the Petitioner was also given opportunity to adduce evidence before the Learned Labour Court. Taking all circumstances into account Learned Labour Court has passed the award which does not suffer from any of the vices which may warrant interference in this writ application. Therefore, the writ application is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed