ORDER : K.B.K. Vasuki, J. The writ petition is filed to quash the award of the first Respondent made on 18.6.2008 in I.D. No. 433 of 2004. 2. The brief facts which are relevant for consideration herein are as follows: The second Respondent was appointed as fitter on 7.7.1993 and was confirmed in the post of Operator on 30.6.1994 and he was entrusted to do the jobs of turning, drilling and grinding. While so, there was not much work In the Plant III Unit, where he was employed and the management instead of laying off all the employees, put the second Respondent and others on compulsory wait paying them full salary for 71/2 months and then employed them in the other division at Gummidipoondi. While so, Tripartite Settlement vide Memorandum of Settlement u/s 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 9-8-2001 was arrived, at for the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 as per Clause 6 or which, the management is at liberty to refuse or extend the benefits to certain employees and the workmen agreed to co-operate with the management in eliminating all restrictive and wasteful practices in any form, idle time and for fullest utilisation of the existing manpower and resources to reach maximum production subject to normal circumstances and facilities made available to the workmen. 3. According to the Petitioner, as the second Respondent deliberately refused to work: resulting in reduction in the production target, the management invoking the terms, cut his wages to make pro-rata payments to the Petitioner and the management also initiated disciplinary proceedings and framed charges on 13.12.2002 and 17.2.2003 for certain misconduct and separate domestic enquiry was conducted in respect of two charges and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the second Respondent guilty of the misconduct to the disciplinary authority and he was issued with 2nd show cause notice and he submitted his explanation and as the same was not satisfactory and as the misconduct committed by him was serious in nature, he was removed from service. Challenging his removal from service, he adjudicated I.D. No. 433 of 2004. While the employee adduced both oral and documentary evidence, the management adduced only documentary evidence before the Labour Court. Challenging his removal from service, he adjudicated I.D. No. 433 of 2004. While the employee adduced both oral and documentary evidence, the management adduced only documentary evidence before the Labour Court. The first Respondent Labour Court held the enquiry to be fair and proper, however, found the charges levelled against the second Respondent to be superficial in nature on the ground that the second Respondent achieved 75% production target and had unblemished service for 14 years and non-examination of any of the workmen as one of the management witnesses in the domestic enquiry vitiated the finding of the enquiry officer and the order of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges proved against the second Respondent and hence, allowed I.D. by ordering reinstatement of the second Respondent with back wages and other monetary benefits. The correctness, the validity of the order of the Labour Court is challenged herein. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/management, no ground is made out by the second Respondent to differ from the finding of the enquiry officer and the labour court has reversed the finding of the enquiry officer without any sufficient material and without any perversity in the finding of the enquiry officer and the findings of the first Respondent/Labour Court, as referred to above, is totally due to erroneous approach to the facts and evidence made available before the same. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the labour court is erred in not appreciating the conduct of the second Respondent in persistently disobeying the order of the disciplinary authority and his refusal to do the job entrusted to him resulting in low production which inturn resulted in loss to the management. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the adamant attitude or the workmen is apparently evident from his own conduct in questioning the authority of the management to transfer him to other section and to allot him the job of fitter and such act coupled with deliberate refusal to do the job of fitter amounts to misconduct for which, he was charged. 5. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/employee would contend that the entire proceedings of keeping the second Respondent in compulsory wait, his transfer to other division at Gummidipoondi as fitter and charges levelled and disciplinary proceeding a initiated against him are mala fide in nature and amounts to an act of victimisation for his trade union activities. It is further contended that he was entrusted with the job of fitter which is fairly new job, not commensurate with his experience and skill and the reduction of his wages without any enquiry is illegal and the charges levelled against him is with ulterior motive and even after the award of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service, It was not duly complied with by the management. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the second Respondent that he was also during pendency of writ petition, dismissed from service without any notice, charges or enquiry and the same would reveal the lack of bona fide in the contentions raised by the Petitioner in this writ petition. 6.I have heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 7. It is not in dispute that the second Respondent joined the Petitioner management as fitter on 7.7.93 and was confirmed as operator on 30-6-1994. The Petitioner company was at one point of time, continuously running on loss resulting in Tri-party settlement between the employees and the management and even thereafter the situation did not seen to be improved, as a result, the management had to keep the second Respondent and few others on compulsory wait for 71/2 months, however with full back wages and other benefits. Thereafter, the second Respondent was called for, transferred from Plant ill Unit to other division at Gummidipoondi as Fitter, where he was issued with charge memo, followed by disciplinary proceedings and the outcome of the same is his removal from service which is challenged before the first Respondent/labour court and the Labour Court has reversed the order of dismissal. 8. The second Respondent was served with two charge memos within the interval of 7 days for more or less identical charges. There was two separate enquiries and two separate enquiry reports, but the punishment Imposed was on the basis of two enquiry reports. 8. The second Respondent was served with two charge memos within the interval of 7 days for more or less identical charges. There was two separate enquiries and two separate enquiry reports, but the punishment Imposed was on the basis of two enquiry reports. The charges contained in the charge memo dated 13.12.2003 are five in number relating to the period from 16.10.2002 to 12.12.2002, whereas the charges contained in charge memo dated 17.2.2003 are three in numbers relating to the period from 13.12.2002 and the charges levelled against the second Respondent are wilful insubordination or disobedience or any order any order of the superior, riotious or disorderly behaviour during working hours in the premises or any act subversive of discipline, negligence or neglect of work, wilful damages or damage a due to negligence or carelessness to work in process or any other property of the company, wilful slowing down in performance of work or abetment or instigation thereof and loitering, idling or wasting time during working hours. The enquiry officer has on the basis of oral evidence adduced through (i) Foundary Division Supervisor, (ii) Personnel Officer and (iii) Deputy General Manager and the 15 exhibits marked on the side of the management, held that all the charges are proved against the workman and as further explanation offered by the workman for the proven charges was not satisfactory, he was removed from service. The first Respondent Labour court in the industrial dispute raised by the workmen, though found that the enquiry was held in proper and fair manner and the Petitioner was appointed subject to condition that he is liable to be transferred from one division to another and that the employee is bound to carry on any job entrusted to him, but found that the job given to him in another division is degrading in nature. Only in this factual background, the correctness and validity of the finding of the first Respondent labour court differing with the finding of the enquiry officer is to be appreciated. 9. Before going into the main issue on facts, the legal position as to the nature and extent of interference of the Labour Court into the findings of the enquiry officer is to be first considered. 9. Before going into the main issue on facts, the legal position as to the nature and extent of interference of the Labour Court into the findings of the enquiry officer is to be first considered. In this regard, the latest judgment cited on the side of the Petitioner/management is the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2009 (4) LLN 599 in West Bokaro Colliery (Tisco, Ltd.) v. Ram Pravesh Singh 2009 (4) LLN 599 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, by referring to the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (i) 2008 (1) LLN 762 in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Vinod Kumar (ii) The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union Vs. The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 201 , (iii) 1973 (1) LLN 278 in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India (Private) Ltd. v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India (Private) Ltd. 1973 (1) LLN 278 , (iv) 2004 (4) LLN 786 in Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C v. AT. Mane 2004 (4) LLN 786, in Rattan Singh case, and (vi) 2002 (2) LLN 16 in Devendra Swamy v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation 2002 (2) LLN 16 clearly observed that though the labour court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 11A could come to a different conclusion, it is not open to the Tribunals and Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in the place of legitimate conclusion arrived at by the domestic enquiry based on evidence produced on the side of the management which cannot be discarded by the tribunal on the ground of absence of independent evidence and in the absence of a challenge to the legality or fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Court should be reluctant to either interfere with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer or the punishment awarded by the punishing authority and the finding recorded by the domestic Tribunal cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal as if it was an Appellate Tribunal. 10. 10. If in this legal background, the charges levelled against the second Respondent, his explanation to the same, his further explanation to the enquiry report and the averments raised in the affidavit filed in support of M.P. No. 2 of 2009 filed to vacate the interim stay granted are looked into, it would reveal that the second Respondent-employee has been through out complaining the action of the management in keeping him under compulsory wait, his transfer to other division, allotment or job of grinding, reduction of his wages on the basis of pro-rata wage initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and the outcome of the same. It is repeatedly stated by the second Respondent that all the acts above referred to of the management are only by way of victimization to harass him etc., and are mala fide in nature. It is but to be considered that such allegations are for the first time raised by him and the second Respondent-employee has not chosen to raise any dispute earlier against his compulsory wait, transfer to other division and the issuance of charge memo to him etc. 11. In so far as compulsory wait is concerned, as he was paid full back-wages, the employee can have no grievance. Regarding his transfer from one division to another is concerned, the same is also in accordance with the condition subject to which, he was appointed and the same cannot be without any other allegations of mala fide subject-matter of any complaint. The main grievance raised by the second Respondent seems to be that he was not assigned any job in commensurate with his skill and experience and the job entrusted to him, is degrading in nature and he lacks any experience and training in the same. The main grievance raised by the second Respondent seems to be that he was not assigned any job in commensurate with his skill and experience and the job entrusted to him, is degrading in nature and he lacks any experience and training in the same. In this regard, if the first charge memo issued to him with details of work assigned to him and his performance is looked into, the same reveals that though he was served with order of transfer on 13.12.2002, he was absent for six days and joined duty on 23.10.2002 and given induction training for the first few days and on 28.1.2002 onwards he was persistently refused to work for full shift and refused to sign log book etc., and there was such low production, which is nearer to nil production comparing to the production target assigned and there was totally nil production for few days between 6.12.2002 and 12.12.2002. Similar charges are levelled against him for the subsequent period from 13-12-2002 onwards. 12. The perusal of the copy of the explanations enclosed at pages 3 to 9 of additional typed set of papers filed by the Petitioner would reveal that the second Respondent/employee did not deny the particulars contained in the charge-sheet, but was only attempted to attribute the same to the nature of the job assigned to him. The very reading or his explanation would demonstrate to this Court the deliberate refusal on the part of the employee to stay back and to carry on the work assigned to him sincerely to reach maximum production level. Such conduct on the part of the employee amounts to deliberate misconduct as alleged in both the charge memos. The management witnesses in the supervisory cadre are the competent persons to speak about the misconduct of the workman in respect of which the charge memos are issued and the management witnesses who are in the supervisory cadre, deposed as to how the employee was, in disobedience of the order of the superior neglected to perform his duty, resulting in loss to the management. Considering the nature, duration and extent of performance, and the resultant production level made by the second Respondent/employee, the burden is upon him to offer valid reason for his inability to carry on the work assigned to him in proper and effective manner. Considering the nature, duration and extent of performance, and the resultant production level made by the second Respondent/employee, the burden is upon him to offer valid reason for his inability to carry on the work assigned to him in proper and effective manner. The only reason assigned by him is that as the job assigned to him is new, he is unable to participate in the induction training effectively and the same is also admitted so in the course of domestic enquiry. Had it been true that the job is new and he is unable to do it for want of knowledge and skill to cope up with the nature of work assigned to him, he must have taken all efforts instead of raising complaint and keeping away from work to strive hard to make due and steady progress in his performance which is lacking in the present case. 13. Considering the overall aspects, the enquiry officer has arrived at a definite, proper and logical conclusion that the second Respondent is in wilful disobedience neglected to perform during the office hours within the work premises. Whereas, the labour court causally reversed the findings as if the second Respondent has shown 75% performance and the same is as rightly pointed out, by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, based on no evidence. The grounds on which the enquiry officer's finding is reversed by the labour court is, as observed by the Supreme Court, not valid and sufficient enough to warrant interference of the findings of the enquiry officer. As rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by relying upon the judgment reported in (i) 1997 SC 2274 in Orissa Mining Corporation and Anr. v. Ananda Chandra Prusty 1997 SC 2274, and (ii) 2001 (3) LLN 1146 in Management of Sri Ram Coffee Estate (represented by Superintendent) v. Presiding Officer Labour Court 2001 (3) LLN 1146, Coimbatore and another, the question of burden of proof depends upon the nature of charges and explanation put forward by the delinquent and it is not always lying on the department. 14. As rightly observed in the judgments cited on the side of the Petitioner, it is for the employee to show valid reasons for his absence, refusal to work for full shift, low production etc., and the second Respondent has not satisfactorily discharged his burden. 14. As rightly observed in the judgments cited on the side of the Petitioner, it is for the employee to show valid reasons for his absence, refusal to work for full shift, low production etc., and the second Respondent has not satisfactorily discharged his burden. The Petitioner-management has not only furnished the relevant particulars but also adduced sufficient evidence to probalise its stand as to how the finding of the enquiry officer holding the charges as proved against the second Respondent is based on materials, whereas the same is reversed by the first Respondent/Labour Court without any legally sustainable reason. Under such circumstance, the finding of the first Respondent in the observation of the Supreme Court is perverse in nature warranting interference of this Court. The Petitioner is hence entitled to the relief as sought for herein and the award passed by the first Respondent Labour Court dated 18.6.2008 is hereby set aside. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount if any representing the arrears of salary lying in Court deposit in I.D. No. 433 of 2004 on the file of the first Respondent/Labour Court.