JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 23-10-2003 passed by the learned presiding officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 13-2000, by which, the particular Reference Case No. 13 of 2000 has been answered in favour of the respondent/ management and against the workman. The reference was notified vide Notification dated 21.7.2000 and the same reads as follows:- (1) Whether the Management of Thanai Tea Estate, P.O. Dikom, Dist. Dibrugarh, Assam was justified in terminating the services of Shri Mohendra Dutta Computer Clerk with effect from 18.12.99? (2) If not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof? Shortly stated the fact leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that the concerned workman Shri Mohendra Dutta while was serving as Computer Clerk in the Management of Tea Estate was served with the charge sheet dated 29.7.1999 levying the charge of deliberately showing inflated figure of gross wages payable to the permanent workers. Be it stated here that at the time of issuance of the charge, the workman had put in 20 years of services without any blemish. 2. The basic charge against the petitioner as leveled against him vide charge-sheet dated 29.7.1999 is as follows:- You are alleged to have committed the following misconduct. It has come to the notice of Management after scrutiny of the pay Book (Thanai Men Permanent-two, Thanai Women permanent-One & Billungoonie Men permanent) for the period between 14/06/99 to 27/06/99 that you have deliberately and motivatedly shown and inflated figures of gross wages payable to permanent workers as follows:- That as a result of such deliberate excess reflection of the total earnings shown by you the Company has suffered a loss of Rs. 18,000/- during the period under references. That you have willfully suppressed the printing out of the relevant of PAY ABSTRACTS thus misleading the Management resulting in loss to Management stated above. 3. It was alleged that by the aforesaid act, the workman and his accomplices resorted to illegal personal gain. It was also alleged that scrutiny of the records was in progress and such conduct on the part of the workman amounted to act of theft, fraud and dishonesty. The workman was also asked to explain as why the loss suffered by the management Tea Estate amounting to Rs. It was also alleged that scrutiny of the records was in progress and such conduct on the part of the workman amounted to act of theft, fraud and dishonesty. The workman was also asked to explain as why the loss suffered by the management Tea Estate amounting to Rs. 18,000/- should not be recovered from him. 4. On receipt of the charge sheet, the workman submitted his Annexure-2 written statement of defence dated 3.8.1999 denying the charged leveled against him. In the Written statement, the workman denied the allegation of misconduct on his part. It was stated that responsible officer of the Tea estate having approved all the pay books with the figures shown therein and also having signed by the Assistant Manager and Sr. Manager of the Tea Estate, there was no question of showing any inflated figures by the workman. 5. The workman in his written statement also contended that there could be some technical error arising out of certain defects in the computer itself, but the same could not have led to the inference that the workman was involved in any theft, fraud and dishonesty. It was also stated the such charge was beyond his comprehension. The workman also stated in his written statement that had it been his intention to show inflated figures, he would have manipulated the things in such a way that the same could not have been detected. The workman also pointed out in his written statement that since the payment had made as per the approval accorded by the higher authority, there was no question of any theft and/or misappropriation. It was contended that he was made a scapegoat for the omission and commission made by the higher authority. 6. Being not satisfied with the show cause reply submitted by the workman, the management conducted an enquiry through an Enquiry officer, who on conclusion of the enquiry held the petitioner guilty of the charge. Thereafter, the management concurring with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, dismissed the workman from service vide Annexure-3 order dated 18.12.1999. Consequent upon such dismissal of the workman, industrial (dispute was raised followed by conciliation proceeding, which resulted in failure. Thereafter the Government of Assam vide the aforesaid notification made the aforesaid reference to the Labour Court at Dibrugarh. The reference was registered and numbered as Reference No. 13 of 2000. Consequent upon such dismissal of the workman, industrial (dispute was raised followed by conciliation proceeding, which resulted in failure. Thereafter the Government of Assam vide the aforesaid notification made the aforesaid reference to the Labour Court at Dibrugarh. The reference was registered and numbered as Reference No. 13 of 2000. On receipt of the reference, the Labour Court issued notice to both the parties. On receipt of the notice, the parties appeared and filed their written statement. They also adduced evidences. 7. In the written statement filed on behalf of the workman, it was contended that the workman was required to work on the computer by way of feeding the computer with the figures relating to earnings of worker as per the Ganti Book prepared by Hazira Mhohorer. It was also contended that the figures that had been provided to him, he had entered into the Computer. Further statement made in the written statement was that some others had also operated the Computer. 8. In the written statement submitted by the Management Tea Estate, it was admitted that the figures were entered into the Computer from the Ganti Books. It was also admitted that fortnightly statements for payment to the tea garden workers were prepared by the Computer Clerk on the basis of the datas supplied to him by the Hazira Clerk. However, it was contended that the workman while preparing the computerized payment sheets deliberately changed the gross total of the pay books. The written statement further recorded that when internal auditor visited the company on 1.7.1999 and verified the records, it was detected that the pay books of the permanent workers were manipulated by way of changing total amount and in that way inflated total amount. 9. Learned presiding Officer, Labour Court having answered the reference in favour of the management and against the workman, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition towards challenging the said award. 10. I have heard Ms. A. Bhattacharyaa, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/management. Referring to the evidence on record, Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the workman is a victim of the circumstances and that the learned Labour Court without appreciating the evidence on record in its true prospective passed the impugned award requiring interference of this Court. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/management. Referring to the evidence on record, Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the workman is a victim of the circumstances and that the learned Labour Court without appreciating the evidence on record in its true prospective passed the impugned award requiring interference of this Court. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance on three decisions reported in (1999) 2 SCC 143 , Savita chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. Dyes & chemical Workers Union and another 2004 (1) GLJ 223, Amrit Dewan vs. Assam state Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. & other and AIR 2002 SC 3030 , Sher Bahadur vs. Union of India & other 11. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent management on the other hand, Supporting the impugned award submitted that the evidence on record being overwhelming to establish the charge against the workman, the Writ Court will not sit on appeal over the findings recorded by the learned presiding officer, Labour Court. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2005) 8 SCC 428, SBI vs. K.C. Tharakan & other. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the relevant records including the records received from the Labour Court. Upon giving my anxious consideration to the same my finding and conclusion are as follows:- 13. The charge against the petitioner has been noted above. It was the plea of the management that due to the inflation made in the pay books by the concerned workman, there was excess payment of Rs. 18,000/- and consequently the management suffered financial loss. As to what was the defence of the workman and assertion of the management have been noted above. Learned Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues for adjudication:- (1) Whether the Computer was malfunctioning at the relevant time? (2) Whether the alleged pay books were prepared by the delinquent? (3) Whether total amount of the pay books were inflated by an amount of Rs. 10,000.00? (4) Whether the delinquent misappropriated the Sum of Rs. 18,000.00? 14. (2) Whether the alleged pay books were prepared by the delinquent? (3) Whether total amount of the pay books were inflated by an amount of Rs. 10,000.00? (4) Whether the delinquent misappropriated the Sum of Rs. 18,000.00? 14. Answering the issue No. 1, the learned Labour Court decided the issue against the workman on the ground that the workman did not make any endeavor to establish that the computer was not properly functioning. While answering the issue No. 2 namely whether the alleged pay books were prepared by the delinquent, learned Labour Court has held that the same were all prepared by the workman himself in the computer. While answering the issue in that manner, learned presiding Officer has referred to the evidence adduced by one Sri Baljit Singh, Senior Manager of the Tea Estate (MW-2). Ext-16 pay book has also been referred to. According to MW-2, the document i.e. pay books were prepared by the workman in the computer, Referring to the cross examination of the said witness, it has been held that he stuck to his deposition in chief and that the defence witness had admitted in his deposition that the documents from Ext-11 to 26 except Ex-23 were all prepared by him. 15. I have carefully gone through the deposition made by MW-2 Shri Baljit Singh. He in his Deposition stated about audit party inspection and finding of inflation in three labour pay books. He in his deposition in chief stated that the workman had shown inflated figures in the pay books. In the cross examination, this witness categorically stated that the computer was operated by three persons. He also admitted that it was he, who had endorsed the pay books in which Ext-15 (A) is his signature. According to him at the time of signing of the documents, the anomalies were not brought to his notice. He also admitted that other workmen made payments of wages. Detailing the procedure of preparation of pay books, this witness in his cross-examination stated as to how ganti reports were checked by the computer clerk and thereafter check lists were prepared. Such checklists were sent to the Head Mohorer for verification. It was only after such verification, the checklists were returned to the computer clerk. Thereafter the documents were sent to the Assistant Manager, who signed the pay books every fortnightly. Such checklists were sent to the Head Mohorer for verification. It was only after such verification, the checklists were returned to the computer clerk. Thereafter the documents were sent to the Assistant Manager, who signed the pay books every fortnightly. This Witness further stated in his cross examination that after observing such formalities he again put his signature after which the head clerk prepared the checklists for payment. 16. MW-2 in his cross examination further stated that after the aforesaid procedure, the concerned hazira mohorer collected money from the Head clerk and it was he who had disbursed the same to the workers, The categorical statement made by him in his cross examination is that the computer department does not disburse any amount. 17. Learned Labour Court while answering the issue No. 2 in favour of the management and against: the workman only referred to part of the deposition of the MW-2 details of which have been discussed above. As per own statement of the MW-2, the computer department was not responsible for the payment. When the payments were made after so many formalities sending the pay books to different authorities involving collective responsibility, in my considered opinion, the issue: No. 2 could not have been answered attributing fault on the part of the workman. 18. The Division Bench of this Court in Girish Ch. Sarma vs. BRPL, reported in 2006 (1) GLT 253 affirmed by the Apex Court reported in (2008) SC 1 GLT 5, BRPL vs. Girish Ch. Sarma dealing with the principle relating collective responsibility in the decision making process, held that the charge of fraud against the petitioner involved in the said case was misdirected for the reason that the appellant alone was not entrusted with the particular responsibility and that the responsibility was with the team. As in the said case, in the instant case also, as disclosed by none other than MW-2 himself, it was collective responsibility of the officers and the employees of the Tea estate and consequently the workman alone could not have been picked up for the alleged loss. 19. Above apart, the MW-1 Shri Bhuban Ch. Goswami in his deposition while stating about the domestic enquiry conducted by him stated in his cross examination that he did not know as to whether the computer was operated by other workmen. 19. Above apart, the MW-1 Shri Bhuban Ch. Goswami in his deposition while stating about the domestic enquiry conducted by him stated in his cross examination that he did not know as to whether the computer was operated by other workmen. He categorically admitted that the concerned workman did not make payment and that the Manager signed the pay books. 20. The concerned workman examined himself as WW-1. He in his deposition stated that he was initially appointed as Factory Typist and thereafter became the Computer Clerk. He further stated that in the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer did not give him opportunity to cross examine the witnesses in a proper manner. He also stated that none of the witnesses had deposited that he was responsible for the theft. He further stated that he was not involved in any financial dealing. 21. Coming to the issue No. 3, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court while answering the same, falling back on the finding in respect of the issue No. 1 answered the same against the workman, While doing so, he simply relied upon the figures reflected in the pay books unmindful of the fact: that the same were prepared on the basis of the figures furnished to the workman. MW-2 in his deposition having stated about the detail procedure towards preparation of pay books coupled with approval of payment thereof, the learned Labour Court without discussing anything about the said procedure ought not to have attributed the purported inflation amounting to Rs. 18,000/- to the workman. 22. As regards the issue No. 4, whether the delinquent misappropriated the sum of Rs. 18,000/-, the learned Court referring to the aforesaid evidence of MW-2 and attributing deliberate preparation of inflated bills has answered the issue against the workman. It is nowhere in the evidence that the concerned workman prepared false bills for wrongful gain and loss to the company and yet the learned Labour Court held the workman guilty of misappropriation of the sum of Rs. 18,000/-. 23. There is nothing in the evidence to support that the workman was guilty of the charge of theft, fraud, dishonesty and thus the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court, in my considered view are perverse. It will be appropriate to discuss at this stage, the evidence adduced by MW-3 and MW-4. 18,000/-. 23. There is nothing in the evidence to support that the workman was guilty of the charge of theft, fraud, dishonesty and thus the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court, in my considered view are perverse. It will be appropriate to discuss at this stage, the evidence adduced by MW-3 and MW-4. MW-3 in his cross examination categorically stated that the computer was handled by 4/5 persons and that in the pay books there is signature of the Manager. Be it stated here that the MW-3 was in-charge of the computer. 24. MW-4 is the Senior Assistant Manager of the Tea Estate. He in his cross examination admitted his signature in the pay books. He also stated that Hazira Mohorer did not point out anything regarding excess payment. The workman in his deposition only stated about preparation of the pay books in the computer, but he denied that there was any manipulation on his part. 25. To establish the charge of theft, fraud and dishonesty, the management was required to establish that by making inflation deliberately in the pay books, the workman had gained something. There is absolutely no evidence, even to remotely suggest that by such inflation, the workman had gained anything. 26. In Sabita Chemical (supra), the Apex Court held that when the finding of the Labour Court were patently erroneous and dehors the factual and legal position in record, interference would be called for exercising writ jurisdiction. Similarly in Amrit Dewan (supra) dealing with the perversity of the enquiry report, it was held that the finding arrived at by the Enquiry officer was liable to be interfered with. Same view has been expressed in Sher Bahadur (supra) dealing with sufficiency on evidence. It was held that mere statement by the Enquiry Officer in his report that "in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in enquiry" cannot in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence. As discussed above, there is absolute no evidence to link the particular act of the workman as Computer Assistant with that of financial loss caused to the management. It is in this context, both the Division Bench of this Court and the Apex Court emphasized on collective responsibility in the case of Girish Ch. Sarma (supra). 27. As discussed above, there is absolute no evidence to link the particular act of the workman as Computer Assistant with that of financial loss caused to the management. It is in this context, both the Division Bench of this Court and the Apex Court emphasized on collective responsibility in the case of Girish Ch. Sarma (supra). 27. The decision on which, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance i.e. K.C. Tharakan (supra) is primarily to emphasis on the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Labour/Service matter. The decision has also been pressed into service so as to emphasis that even in case of reinstatement in service, the workman is not entitled to any back wages. 28. While there is no quarrel with the broad proposition of law that the Writ Court is not to sit on appeal over the finding arrived at in the domestic enquiry and/or by the Labour Court on the basis of the evidence on record and that the Writ Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence the like an appellate authority, however, when on the face of it, there is misdirection in appreciating evidence on record and/or non-application of mind in appreciating the same, the Writ Court cannot avoid its scope, power and jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Law is well settled that; in case of no evidence and/or perversity in finding Writ Court can always interfere with the decision on the basis of the same. In the instant case, except the attribution that the workman was responsible for showing inflated rates in the pay books, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish, any link of that inflation with that of theft, fraud and dishonesty attributed to the petitioner. 29. As noted above, evidences are overwhelming to show that ultimate payment was made with the approval of the higher authority and in between paper/documents went through various authorities. It is also on evidence that the workman had typed out the payment sheets on the basis of the particulars/datas furnished to him. He did not do anything in his own and whatever he did was on the basis of the information furnished to him. 30. It is also on evidence that the workman had typed out the payment sheets on the basis of the particulars/datas furnished to him. He did not do anything in his own and whatever he did was on the basis of the information furnished to him. 30. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed which I accordingly do by setting aside and quashing the impugned award dated 23.10.2003 passed in Reference Case No. 13 of 2000. 31. This now leads us to the question as to whether upon reinstatement, the workman would be entitled to back wages. In the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would met if the workman is provided with 50% of the back wages. In addition, he will be entitled to continuity in service with all other consequential benefits as if he were in service all throughout. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicate above, without, however, any order as to costs. Petition allowed.