JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - In W.P. (C) No. 1001 of 2008, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in I.D. Misc. Case No. 37 of 2001 in an application u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter in short as "the Act") filed by it. Similarly, in W.P. (C) No. 1002 of 2008, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in I.D. Misc. Case No. 40 of 2001 in an application u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter in short as "the Act") filed by it. Since common questions of law are involved in both the writ petitions, the same are heard together and the following common judgment is passed thereon. 2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner-management filed the aforesaid Misc. Cases after completion of the inquiry and the report submitted by the inquiring officer with a finding that the delinquents were guilty. Copies of the enquiry report were supplied to the delinquents and penalty of removal from service was imposed on them. Accordingly, the same was referred to the Tribunal for approval under the above provision. 3. The case of the petitioner-management is that the workmen while working as Yard Master and Shunting Porter respectively in the Yard Switching Section of the management committed misconduct by dishonestly attempting to cause willful loss to the company's property by taking the iron towards the dumping yard. On 9.2.2000, the workmen were in 'C' shift duty. On that day, Hot metal Ladle No. 20 and Slag Pot Car No. D/50 were taken to PCM area of Blast Furnace by Loco Nos. 411 and 603 on the instruction of the workmen. Slag Pot Car No. D/50 was intentionally positioned at mixer line (track) where there was no facility for dislodging. After the ladle No. 20 was lip poured into the said slag pot with the hot metal along with the slag at PCM it was put by the workmen along with Sri B. Parida, Shunting Porter of Zone-III of T & RM Department in the track leading to Blast Furnace slag dumping yard and it was found that 14 tons of hot metal worth Rs. 1,05,000/- were taken in it. 1,05,000/- were taken in it. On such fact, the authority issued a charge sheet and the workmen were called upon to submit their respective explanations. However, as the explanations of the workmen were found unsatisfactory, proceedings were started against them. 4. The case of the workmen is that the enquiry was not fairly conducted and they were not aware about the contents of Slag Pot No. D/50 nor they poured the hot iron metal in the slag pot. The pot was removed as per the instruction of the authority. It is further contended by the workmen that neither they were paid any subsistence allowance nor was the enquiry conducted in a fair manner. Accordingly, they prayed for refusal of permission as sought for by the management. 5. The Tribunal while considering the respective pleas of the parties, examined the matter as to whether the domestic enquiry has been conducted fairly in accordance with the relevant rules following the principles of natural justice/equity and whether the materials available on record prima facie established the charges framed against the workmen. It appears from the impugned order that the Tribunal has discussed in details the materials available on record and came to a conclusion that the management failed to establish the charge, and, therefore, there was no need to discuss the evidence led by the workmen. On that finding the penalty imposed by the management was disapproved. In support of its contention, learned Counsel for the management has cited the decisions reported in the cases of The Lord Krishna Textile Mills Vs. Its Workmen, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Another. Niranjan Das Vs. Asst. General Manager, Traffic and Raw Material Department, Rourkela Steel Plant, and Cholan Roadways Limited Vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam, 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while examining the preliminary issue, the Tribunal has transgressed the mandate by entering into the merits of the case and discussed about the evidence available on record, which is beyond its jurisdiction. He further submitted that the Tribunal while adjudicating the issues, has not gone deep into the matter but re-appreciated the materials on its own way in exercising its appellate jurisdiction and came to a finding that the management failed to establish the charges. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Tribunal, however, in Industrial Dispute Misc. He further submitted that the Tribunal while adjudicating the issues, has not gone deep into the matter but re-appreciated the materials on its own way in exercising its appellate jurisdiction and came to a finding that the management failed to establish the charges. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Tribunal, however, in Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No. 39 of 2001 disposed of on 9th October, 2002 approved the action of the management in respect of another co-accused, namely, Shri B.M. Nayak (Crain Operator) who was removed from service in an application u/s 33(2)(b) of the Act. The workman has challenged the said order before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5911 of 2003 and the said writ petition was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 10.7.2008. 7. Learned Counsel for the opp. parties-workmen, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that the Tribunal, taking into consideration all the materials available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order and as such the same need not be interfered with. 8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal has only considered the application u/s 33(2)(b) of the Act as to whether the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the relevant rules and following the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal while adjudicating the issues has gone into the merit of the charges and the evidence available on record. But it has to be considered the reference made under sections 10 and 12 of the I.D. Act. However, in the present case, the Tribunal instead of examining the enquiry conducted by the management properly, passed the impugned order. 9. The Apex Court in the case of The Lord Krishna Textile Mills (supra), held as follows: The jurisdiction of the appropriate industrial authority in holding an enquiry u/s 33(2)(b) cannot be wider and is, if at all, more limited, than that permitted u/s 33(1). In view of the limited nature and extent of the enquiry permissible u/s 33(2)(b) all that the authority can do in dealing with an employer's application is to consider whether a prima facie case for according approval is made out by him or not. In view of the limited nature and extent of the enquiry permissible u/s 33(2)(b) all that the authority can do in dealing with an employer's application is to consider whether a prima facie case for according approval is made out by him or not. If before dismissing an employee the employer has held a proper domestic enquiry and has proceeded to pass the impugned order as a result of the said enquiry, all that the authority can do is to enquiry, all that the authority can do is to enquire whether the conditions prescribed by section 33(2)(b) and the proviso are satisfied or not. The approving authority has to consider only (a) whether the standing orders justify the order of dismissal, (b) whether an enquiry has been held as provided by the standing order, (c) whether the wages for the month have been paid as required by the proviso, and (d) whether an application has been made as prescribed by the proviso and when all these conditions have been fulfilled by the employer the Tribunal is not justified in refusing to accord approval to the action taken by the employer. Nor is it justified while holding the enquiry to assume powers of an Appellate Court which alone is entitled to go into all questions of fact. The question about the adequacy of evidence or its sufficiency or satisfactory character can be raised in a Court of facts and may fall to be considered by an Appellate Court which is entitled to consider facts; but these considerations are irrelevant where the jurisdiction of the Court is limited as u/s 33(2)(b). The aforesaid view has also been reiterated in the case of Cholan Roadway Ltd. (supra). In view of the above position of law, since the Tribunal has gone beyond its jurisdiction and assessed the materials on record produced before the enquiry officer, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in I.D. Misc. Case Nos. 37 of 2001 and 40 of 2001 and remits the matter back to the Tribunal to reconsider it within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Final Result : Disposed Off