JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.3.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Assam at Guwahati in reference Case No. 13/1999 by which while holding that the dismissal of the workmen concerned was not justified, direction has been issued to reinstate the said workmen with full back wages. Be it stated here that two workmen involved were dismissed from service w.e.f. 5.3.1999. 2. The petitioner is a Tea Estate situated at Golaghat and is owned and managed by a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Two of its workmen, namely, Shri Benudhar Tessa and Shri Mubarak Ali, were dismissed from service w.e.f. 5.3.1999 pursuant to domestic enquiry relating to the charge of theft of one beg of tea weighting about 30 kg. from the factory of the Tea Estate. Being aggrieved by such dismissal of the workmen, the Union represented by its Secretary raised an Industrial dispute and in consideration of the same, the Government of Assam in Labour and Employment Department, referred it to the Labour Court vide notification dated 26.11.1999. The reference was as follows: (a) Whether the Management of Dayang Tea Estate is justified in dismissing Md. Mubarak Ali, Driver and Shri Benudhar Tessa with effect from 5.3.1999. (b) If not, arc the said workmen entitled to reinstatement with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof. 3. On receipt of the aforesaid notification, the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh registered the Reference Case No. 20/99 and thereafter issued notice to both the parties to submit their written statement. In response to the said notice, both the parties submitted their written statement In the proceeding before the learned Labour Court, the Management examined five witnesses and the two workmen involved examined themselves in support of their case. It will be pertinent to mention here that the Management being not satisfied with the reply furnished by the Management against the charges leveled against them, conducted a domestic enquiry and in the enquiry the charge against the workmen was established. The order of dismissal followed thereafter. 4. I have heard Mr. J. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel representing the respondents. While Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner upon reference to the entire evidence on record, submitted that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse, Ms. The order of dismissal followed thereafter. 4. I have heard Mr. J. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel representing the respondents. While Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner upon reference to the entire evidence on record, submitted that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse, Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ court exercising its power of judicial review may not sit on appeal over the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank (2006) 10 SCC 572 . (2) Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P. C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 . (3) Bank of India v. Degela Suryanarayan (1999) 5 SCC 762 . (4) State Bank of Bikanir, Jaipur v. Srinath Gupta (1996) 6 SCC 486 . (5) Sayed Rahimuddin v. Director General CSIR (2001) 9 SCC 575 . (6) Peico Electronics v. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 658 . 5. On the other hand, Ms. Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Savita Chemicals v. Dyes & Chemicals Workers Union (1999) 2 SCC 143 . (2) Manager (In-charge), Kuhum Tea Estate v. State of Assam 2007 (2) GLT 965. 6. I have considered the rival submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials on record including the records of the learned Labour Court. 7. Before proceeding with the instant proceeding, appreciating the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials on record, I propose to deal with the decisions on which the learned Counsel for the parties have placed reliance so as to appreciate the applicability or otherwise of the said decisions in the instant case. 8. In Suresh Pathrella (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the case of misappreciation without causing loss to the Bank held that irrespective of the fact that whether any loss was caused to the bank or not, but the conduct involved was misconduct not warranting lenient view and upheld the punishment of removal from service. 9. 8. In Suresh Pathrella (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the case of misappreciation without causing loss to the Bank held that irrespective of the fact that whether any loss was caused to the bank or not, but the conduct involved was misconduct not warranting lenient view and upheld the punishment of removal from service. 9. In P.C. Kakkar (supra), the Apex Court emphasizing the need for the discharge of duties with outmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence held that a bank Officer should do nothing unbecoming of a bank Officer. It was also held that in the matter of penalty/punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the same unless the punishment is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the offence committed. 10. In Degela Suryanarayan (supra) restating the scope of judicial review in respect of the findings of disciplinary authority held that the findings supported by reasons and based on the evidence on record are not subjected to judicial review in Srinath Gupta (supra), Sayed Rahimuddin (supra) and Peico Electronics (supra) somewhat similar view has been expressed. 11. In Savita Chemicals (supra), it was held that if the findings are patently erroneous and do hors the factual and legal position, interference with the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be justified. 12. In Kuhum Tea Estate (supra) the learned Single Bench of this Court observed that the writ court is not supposed to exercise appellate jurisdiction over the adjudication of Labour Court and substitute its conclusions on reassessment of recorded facts and that if two views are possible and the one adopted by the Labour Court is plausible, no interference therewith is warranted. 13. The aforesaid decisions are on the well settled principles relating to the scope and jurisdiction of the writ court to interfere with the finding arrived at by the fact finding authority and the Labour Court/Tribunal, etc. However, the said principles will have to be applied in the touch stone of facts involved in each and every case. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, I now proceed to deal with the facts and circumstances involved in this case to find out as to whether the findings arrived at by the Labour Court could be interfered with exercising the writ jurisdiction. 14. The charge (Ext. 5) against the workman Md. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, I now proceed to deal with the facts and circumstances involved in this case to find out as to whether the findings arrived at by the Labour Court could be interfered with exercising the writ jurisdiction. 14. The charge (Ext. 5) against the workman Md. Mubark Ali was as follows: You have illegally carried in vehicle No. AS-05/4661 one bag of tea weighting approximately 30 kgs. And have sold the same to outsider for personal gain. 15. The charges against Benudhar Tessa was as follows: On 5.10.1998 you have illegally removed one bag of tea approximately 30 kgs. From the factory and have the same to outsider for personal gain. 16. The aforesaid charges against the two workmen were framed on the basis of two complaints (Ext. 1 and Ext. 2) submitted by Shri Narayan, Shri Suren Mura (MW 5), Holla Bakti (MW 4) and Tintas (MW 4). 17. The basic charge against the two workmen was that they had illegally removed one bag of tea weighting approximately 30 kgs. from the factory and sold out the same for their personal gain. While in the charge against workman Benudhar Tessa, the date of occurrence was mentioned as 5.10.1998, but in the charge against Md. Mubarak Ali no date was mentioned. 18. The learned Labour Court has passed the impugned award holding that non-mentioning of any date in the charge framed against Md. Mubarak Ali was fatal. Similar view has been expressed in respect of the charge framed against Shri Benudhar Tessa as the same did not mention about the place where he had allegedly sold out the tea bag for personal gain. According to the learned Labour Court the enquiry officer having failed to take note of these two factors, the report furnished by him was not tenable in law. Another view expressed by the learned Labour Court is that complaints had been lodged after nine days of the occurrence and, thus, there was delay. In paragraph-19 of the impugned award the learned Labour Court has held that the witnesses examined by the Management gave different stories before the authority relating to the same incident at different time. Another view expressed by the learned Labour Court is that complaints had been lodged after nine days of the occurrence and, thus, there was delay. In paragraph-19 of the impugned award the learned Labour Court has held that the witnesses examined by the Management gave different stories before the authority relating to the same incident at different time. It has been observed that the said witnesses improved their statements and deposed before the Enquiry Officer and Court that one tea bag in excess was loaded in the vehicle as per the direction of Benudhar Tessa and the same was sold to outsider by Mubarak Ali at Golaghat. According to the learned Labour Court, the Enquiry Officer failed to take note of the improved version of the witnesses relating to the offence committed by both the workmen. 19. Although in paragraph 19 of the impugned award the aforesaid findings have been recorded by the learned Labour Court, but what I find is that there is no reference to the depositions made by the MWs and the analysis thereof. The context in which the aforesaid observations have been made is related to the depositions made by said MWs. It was in this context Mr. J. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that when the evidences are overwhelming towards. establishing the charges against two workmen, the learned Labour Court could not have brushed aside the same simply by making observation relating to the alleged improvement made by MWs. 20. The learned Labour Court before recording the findings that there was improvement in the depositions made by MWs than what was stated earlier will have to be decided in the touch stone of the principles involved in the domestic enquiry. The proceeding involved being not a criminal proceeding, what was required to be established is the preponderance of probability. It was the duty of the learned Labour Court to find out as to whether the said principle involved in a domestic enquiry was complied with or not. The learned Labour Court has also not explained as to how the delay of nine days in lodging the complaint is fatal to the charge against the workmen. It is not the case of the workmen that such delay was prejudicial to their defence. 21. The learned Labour Court has also not explained as to how the delay of nine days in lodging the complaint is fatal to the charge against the workmen. It is not the case of the workmen that such delay was prejudicial to their defence. 21. As regards to the charges leveled against the two workmen it is nowhere in the evidence that they did not understand the charges. The basic charges being removal of one tea bag from the Tea Estate and the said incident being related to both the workmen, although in the charge framed against Md. Mubarak Ali the date of occurrence was not mentioned, but it was clearly mentioned in the charge made against Shri Benudhar Tessa. Basically both the charges against the workmen are one and the same, which is, the removal of one bag of tea weighting approximately 30 kg. from the factory and selling out the same for personal gain. In the reply furnished by the two workmen and so also in the written statement, it was not contended that they did not understand the charges, same being vague and indefinite. Further it was immaterial as to whether there was any evidence as to the place of selling out the tea bag, the basic charge being removal of the same from the factory without authority. 22. In view of the above, the learned Labour Court could not have set aside the impugned award solely on the basis of the purported technical ground of non-mentioning of the date of occurrence in respect of Md. Mubarak Ali and place in which the tea bag was sold by the two workmen. Further, as noted above, there was also no proper appreciation of the evidence by the Labour Court. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment and award 19.3.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Assam at Guwahati in Reference Case No. 13/1999 is liable to be set aside and quashed which I accordingly do. The matter shall now go back to the Labour Court for deciding the reference afresh on the basis of the evidence on record keeping in mind the observations made in this judgment and order. The learned Labour Court shall decide the reference afresh on the basis of the available evidence/materials as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from today on receipt of the case records. 24. The learned Labour Court shall decide the reference afresh on the basis of the available evidence/materials as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from today on receipt of the case records. 24. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, without however, any order to costs. Registry shall send down the case records to the Labour Court, Dibrugarh immediately alongwith the copy of this judgment and order. Petition allowed