Judgment :- 1. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court both management as well as workmen have approached this Court by way of two Writ Petitions, challenging the same award. Therefore both the Writ Petitions are dealt with by this common order. For the sake of convenience the petitioner in writ petition No. 19232 of 2003 is described as “petitioner” and the second respondent, in the said writ petition is the management which would be described as “management” hereafter. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was employed as Jewel Appraiser by the Management. While functioning as Jewel Appraiser, it is stated that the petitioner forged thumb impression of his mother and availed the jewel loan from the Bank. Therefore a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 21.11.1991, for which an explanation was given on 30.03.1992. Pending enquiry he was kept and under suspension. After enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges against the petitioner was proved. Thereafter, a second Show Cause Notice was given and explanation was obtained from the petitioner and the petitioner was terminated from service on 05.09.1996. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer, Salem and failure reported was submitted. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a claim before the Tribunal challenging his termination from service. The Labour Court framed Preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry and answered it in favour of the petitioner. Therefore the Management was called upon to prove the charges. 3. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record the Labour Court came to the conclusion that charges against the petitioner was not proved and held that the original document said to have been executed by the petitioner admitting his was not produced and no explanation was given as to why it was not produced and that there is no chance of availing the Jewel loan without counter signature from the two members of the society and that the official who gave the complaint, withdrew the complaint subsequently. The labour Court making certain observations regarding the conduct of the petitioner, re-instated the petitioner in service without to the denial back wages and filed Writ Petition No. 19232 of 2003 and Questioning petitioner’s re-instatement, the management filed W.P. No. 38927 of 2002. 4. The labour Court making certain observations regarding the conduct of the petitioner, re-instated the petitioner in service without to the denial back wages and filed Writ Petition No. 19232 of 2003 and Questioning petitioner’s re-instatement, the management filed W.P. No. 38927 of 2002. 4. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the second respondent society is a Banking Institution and the petitioner is a Jewel Appraiser, for which absolute integrity is required. The Tribunal found that Ex. M2 letter got no evidentially value but still found that the petitioner could not deny that such letter was not given by him. The petitioner only contended that under threat and coercion the letter was executed by him. When such an admission was made by the petitioner and the Tribunal also found that the document could not said to have been executed by the petitioner and the Labour court ought to have re-instated the petitioner. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Management of Catholic Syrian Bank Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Madras – 104 and another. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman submitted that the Tribunal discussed the evidence in detail and based on evidence, came to the categorical conclusion that the charges against the petitioner was not proved. It also relied upon the evidence extensively and also documentary evidence and thereafter only, it rightly came to the conclusion that Ex.M2 has no evidentially value. When the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the termination of the petitioner is invalid, it ought to have re-instated the petitioner with back wages. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.S. Chandra Shekra Chari Vs. Divisional Controller, KSRTC and another reported in (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 611 and contended that disallowing back wages is illegal. He relied upon another judgment of the Apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd Vs. K.P. Agrawal and another reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 433. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was employed as Jewel Appraiser with effect from 18.09.1990. A show cause notice was issued on 19.10.1991 stating that the forging his mother’s thumb impression, he obtained a jewel loan. After that enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. The petitioner raised industrial dispute. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was employed as Jewel Appraiser with effect from 18.09.1990. A show cause notice was issued on 19.10.1991 stating that the forging his mother’s thumb impression, he obtained a jewel loan. After that enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. The petitioner raised industrial dispute. The preliminary issue which was raised in regarding the validity of domestic enquiry was answered in favour of the petitioner and therefore the second respondent Management was called upon to adduce fresh evidence to prove the charges before the Labour Court. On the side of the workman, one witness was examined and one document was marked. On the side of the Management as many as five witness were examined and 22 Exhibits were marked. The petitioner claims reinstatement with back wages. 7. The Tribunal found that for getting jewel loan and also for the repayment, two members of the society are required to be counter signed. Taking into above into consideration the Tribunal held that it is impossible to believe that the petitioner obtained a jewel loan by affixing his mother’s thump impression, without counter signatures of the members. It is alleged that the above said Act of the petitioner came to light when one Mr. Thangaraj came to repay the jewel loan and redeem the jewel. However, the said Thangaraj was not examined on the side of the Management. MW1’s evidence also did not support the case of the Management. MW1 stated that he did not know any details like weight jewels, quantum of loan etc. He also pleaded ignorance about the letter of admission said to have been executed by the petitioners. Moreover the Tribunal took into consideration the absence of any complaint preferred by one Mr. Thangaraj. MW2 also stated that the petitioner did not pledge the jewel in his presence. MW3 stated he did not know about the procedure with regard to jewel loan. MW4 only gave the complaint to the Assistant Register to take action against the petitioner. He categorically stated that came to know that the petitioner took jewel loan in the name of his mother and without verifying the above, he gave the complaint to the higher authorities which was Ex.R22. 8. MW4 only gave the complaint to the Assistant Register to take action against the petitioner. He categorically stated that came to know that the petitioner took jewel loan in the name of his mother and without verifying the above, he gave the complaint to the higher authorities which was Ex.R22. 8. After pursuing Ex.R22, the Tribunal categorically gave a finding that MW4 did not state in the complaint that he had personal knowledge about the loan transaction and subsequently he came to know about the same through Bank records. Thereafter he withdrew the complaint on 23.09.1996 through letter addressed to the Assistant Register and the Management. MW5 stated that the petitioner gave a letter Ex.R2 admitting his crime, As Xerox copy of the said letter of admission was produced, the Tribunal rightly found that the said document cannot be relied upon and it has got no evidentially value. Moreover the said document should have been with the management and there was no explanation why the original letter was not produced before the Tribunal. Apart from that, the Tribunal considered the fact about non mentioning of the admission letter dated 12.07.1991 in Ex.M2 charge memo dated 21.11.1991. In the above circumstances only, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Ex.M2 cannot be consideration as evidence. That apart the Tribunal took in to the consideration the repayment of loan amount along with interest and also no pecuniary loss to the Bank, if the petitioner is re-instated. The Tribunal also noted that fact that the non examination of the members, who signed for the loan and there was no explanation on the side of the signed for the loan and there was no explanation on the side of the management with regard to non examination of these witnesses. On those circumstances only the Tribunal found that the charges against the petitioner was not proved. 9. The Tribunal is the last forum to give finding on facts and this Court cannot sit an appeal and re-appreciate the evidence and reach different conclusions and therefore the finding of the facts recorded by the Tribunal cannot be set aside and however the Tribunal though came to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner was not proved, still gave observations that the admission letter could be said to have been not executed by the petitioner. In Paragraph 13 of the Order the Tribunal gave cogent reasons, why the Tribunal was not awarding back wages to the petitioner. It is observed that the confusion created with regard to the loan, was due to the petitioner himself and he gave room for complaint and based on the above, the Tribunal rightly denied backwages to the petitioner and reinstated with continuity in service. The reasons give by the Tribunal are well justified and the same are confirmed. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed and the Award of the Tribunal is affirmed. Consequently connected the Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.