Judgment : 1. This writ petition is filed against the award of the Labour Court in dismissing the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner herein. The petitioner approached the Labour Court being aggrieved against the order of termination passed by the 2nd respondent/ Management. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- He joined duty in the second respondent's Corporation as Assistant during 1985 and he was elected as the Secretary of Employees Union. He has raised his voice against unfair labour practice of the Management. The petitioner, as Secretary of the said Union, took active part in the Union activities. The Management, in order to victimise the petitioner, had suspended him from service on 27.10.1997 on flimsy and baseless charge. In the enquiry conducted, no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. Even though there was no evidence to establish the charges levelled against the petitioner, the Management imposed the punishment of termination from service through its order dated 22.04.1998. Thus, it had resulted in filing of the above I.D. 3. The case of the second respondent / Management is as follows:- Three charges were framed against the petitioner, crux of the same are viz., [a] unauthorised disclosure of official information; [b] Lack of integrity due to collection of information and [c] Insubordination and misuse of official position. 4. The enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in a proper manner by adhering to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner along with some others were involved in running a parallel and rival financial company. 5. The Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry conducted was in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the termination of the petitioner was made based on proper materials on record. 6. Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit as follows:- The Enquiry Officer considered certain materials which were not given to the petitioner. Therefore, it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Report was based on only one witness whereas the other 2 witnesses spoken against the Management. The Labour Court has to re-appreciate the evidence which has not been done in this case. Thus, there is a failure to exercise jurisdiction under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. One Rev. Fr.Yuvon Ambroise was not examined to whom it was alleged, that the petitioner had leaked the information. 7. The Labour Court has to re-appreciate the evidence which has not been done in this case. Thus, there is a failure to exercise jurisdiction under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. One Rev. Fr.Yuvon Ambroise was not examined to whom it was alleged, that the petitioner had leaked the information. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Management supported the order of the Labour Court and submitted that all the objections raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are well answered in the Enquiry Report as well as the Award of the Labour Court itself. 8. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 9. The point for consideration is as to whether the Award of the Labour Court in dismissing the I.D. filed by the petitioner is liable to be interfered with. 10. The petitioner was working as Assistant in the second respondent Corporation. Three charges were framed against the petitioner, which run as follows:- ARTICLE:I That during the period May 1996 while functioning as Accountant-III in the HRFC, Pondicherry, Thiru D.Joseph Jeyaradj has disclosed without authorisation official information with an ulterior motive to cause embarrassment to the corporation and has thereby committed a misconduct amounting to lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of an employee of the corporation. ARTICLE:II That during the above said period and while functioning in the above said office, the said Thiru.D.Joseph Jeyaradj has stolen access the records of other desks for purposes of collecting and divulging information from those records without authorisation and has thereby committed misconduct again amounting to lack of integrity. ARTICLE:III That during the above said period and while functioning in the above said office, the said Thiru.D.Joseph Jeyaradj by collecting and divulging information about the affairs of the HRFC has misused his official position and behaved with disrespect to his superior officers and is thereby guilty of insubordination. " Based on the above 3 charges, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. A perusal of the Enquiry Report would show that the preliminary enquiry was fixed on 03.03.1997 and after several hearings and adjournments, the report came to be filed only on 31.03.1998, i.e., after one year. It is seen that the enquiry was adjourned on several occasions at the instance of the petitioner. A perusal of the Enquiry Report would show that the preliminary enquiry was fixed on 03.03.1997 and after several hearings and adjournments, the report came to be filed only on 31.03.1998, i.e., after one year. It is seen that the enquiry was adjourned on several occasions at the instance of the petitioner. It is also seen that the petitioner sought for change of the Enquiry Officer which was rejected by the Management through proceedings dated 07.06.1997. In the meantime, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined in chief and the matter was posted for cross-examination of those witnesses by the petitioner. It appears that on 16.06.1997, the petitioner sought for certain documents before cross-examining witnesses and the said petition was considered by the Enquiry Officer and accordingly, the Management was called upon to state as to whether they would comply with the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, on 25.06.1997, the Management furnished certain documents required by the petitioner and in respect of some other documents, it was informed by them that they were related to the business transactions of the Organisation and thus not relevant to the charges and hence, could not be made available to the petitioner. Again, by a communication dated 28.06.1997, the petitioner requested for certain documents. On 30.06.1997, certain documents required by the petitioner were furnished with copies given to him. On 09.07.1997, the Enquiry Officer passed a detailed order with regard to the documents required by the petitioner and the objections given by the Management. 11. It was found by the Enquiry Officer that the request of the petitioner for other documents were found to be not relevant to the scope of enquiry and the charge. Therefore, no cross-examination of witnesses had taken place and the Enquiry was adjourned for such purpose to 22.07.1997. The petitioner was also directed to submit his list of witnesses. On 22.07.1997, the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by the petitioner. However, he did not produce the relevant list of witnesses or the documents to be marked on his behalf. On the other hand, he sought for time for that purpose. Only on 30.07.1997, he presented a petition furnishing list of witnesses and documents which he wanted to produce in the enquiry. Accordingly, the enquiry was adjourned to 04.08.1997. The Management expressed their objection to summon certain witnesses cited by the petitioner except Fr.Yuvon Ambroise. On the other hand, he sought for time for that purpose. Only on 30.07.1997, he presented a petition furnishing list of witnesses and documents which he wanted to produce in the enquiry. Accordingly, the enquiry was adjourned to 04.08.1997. The Management expressed their objection to summon certain witnesses cited by the petitioner except Fr.Yuvon Ambroise. The request of the petitioner was considered by the Enquiry Officer and he found that except Fr.Yuvon Ambroise, rest of the witnesses sought to be examined by the petitioner were irrelevant persons to the charge. Accordingly, summons were issued to the said person to appear for the enquiry. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the petitioner did not bring the said witness for examination or cite any other witnesses relevant to the charges or to make a statement for closing the enquiry. On 01.12.1997, the petitioner came up with a list of some witnesses again to speak about the matters irrelevant to the charge. The Enquiry Officer found that the witnesses cited by the petitioner were not relevant to the charge. Thus, he found that the petitioner was consistently protracted the enquiry and had been citing irrelevant documents and witnesses which were beyond the scope of the charge. Thereafter, on 03.12.1997, the petitioner came up with another petition making allegation against the Inquiring Authority. Thereupon, the Enquiry Officer based on the materials available and the evidence let in, found that the handwriting found in Ex.A1 is that of the petitioner which contains official information. The Enquiry Officer also found that even though the question of divulging the information could not be proved, an attempt to do the same was certainly proved. Thus, he found that the act of stealing the records by misuse of official position and insubordination have been substantiated. Thus, he found that the articles of charge indicating the petitioner with lack of integrity, conduct of unbecoming of an employee of the corporation, misuse of official possession and insubordination have been proved. 12. The Labour Court pointed out that the petitioner has tried his level best to protract the proceedings. It is also observed by the Labour Court that the petitioner gathered certain information from the records of the second respondent’s office which has been jotted out by him in a paper sheet marked as Ex.A1. 12. The Labour Court pointed out that the petitioner has tried his level best to protract the proceedings. It is also observed by the Labour Court that the petitioner gathered certain information from the records of the second respondent’s office which has been jotted out by him in a paper sheet marked as Ex.A1. The Labour Court has pointed out that the petitioner while was on leave during the month of May 1996, P.W.3 was in-charge as Cashier, who found in the waste paper basket of cash cabin, a sheet of paper slightly torn contained the details about the deposits and loans made in the Corporation and few other transactions. It was also pointed out by the Labour Court that the said sheet also contained certain details which are distorted so as to bring disrepute to the higher officials and Managing Partner of the Corporation. It is further found that the details in the above sheet written in the own handwriting of the petitioner with a foot note at the end purported to be meant for Rev.Fr.Yuvon Ambroise stating that the said sheet should be kept safely since the petitioner’s handwriting is known to all persons in diocese. The Labour Court further found that from the particulars jotted out by the petitioner in that sheet were not expected to be gathered from the records of the respondent's office. 13. P.W.3 has clearly spoken that the jotted notings in Ex.A1 is that of the petitioner since he was conversant with the handwriting of the petitioner. Therefore, based on the evidence of P.W.3, the Enquiry Officer as well as the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had stolen access to the records of the respondents/Management and jotted those points in Ex.A1. It is also noted by the Labour Court that the Enquiry Officer has found that an attempt to divulge his information was proved. 14. The petitioner wanted to examine the said Rev.Fr.Yuvan Ambrose and inspite of issuing summon to the said person, he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Thus, by considering all these facts and circumstances, the Labour Court has found that the charges levelled against the petitioner was proved and the punishment imposed against the petitioner does not warrant any interference. 15. No doubt, the petitioner had sought for permission for examining some other witnesses. Thus, by considering all these facts and circumstances, the Labour Court has found that the charges levelled against the petitioner was proved and the punishment imposed against the petitioner does not warrant any interference. 15. No doubt, the petitioner had sought for permission for examining some other witnesses. One of the said witnesses namely Fr.Yuvon Ambroise failed to appear. How far those other witnesses are relevant to the charges have not been explained by the petitioner. Equally, the petitioner has not stated as to how he was prejudiced in not producing certain documents by the Management and the petitioner has also not proved as to how those documents are relevant to the charges in these circumstances. At any event, based on Ex.A1, which has been clearly spoken to by P.W.3, the finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be found fault with. From the perusal of the enquiry report, it is seen that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity by furnishing relevant documents. Hence, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 16. A overall reading of the charges levelled against the petitioner would show that the Management has lost confidence on the petitioner, which has also been proved during the enquiry. No doubt, in so far as the charge of divulging the information is concerned, though the Enquiry Officer has found that the same has not been proved, however he has categorically found that there was an attempt to make such divulgence. Further, the petitioner was given adequate opportunity during the enquiry. From the cross-examination of P.W.3 who has spoken clearly about the handwriting of the petitioner under Ex.A1, nothing was elicited from P.W.3 to disprove the said contentions. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 has clearly spoken against the petitioner and supported the charges. 17. In fact, P.W.3 has clearly stated during the domestic enquiry that he only found out Ex.A1 from the waste paper basket and that the handwriting and the jotted notings found in Ex.A1 are that of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer himself by referring to the character of the handwriting of the petitioner on the envelopes written by him, arrived at a conclusion that the jotted notings are that of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer himself by referring to the character of the handwriting of the petitioner on the envelopes written by him, arrived at a conclusion that the jotted notings are that of the petitioner. Moreover, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have also stated that they did not furnish any details to the petitioner which statement undoubtedly proves that the petitioner had only stolen the access to the records of the respondents and jotted those details in Ex.A1. It is also seen that the petitioner was given certain documents which he sought for before the cross-examination of the Management witnesses and only certain documents were not furnished to him as it was found that those documents are not in relation to the charges. It is seen that the petitioner has not shown as to how he was prejudiced by non furnishing of those documents as well as non examination of some of the witnesses. At any event, from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the charge against the petitioner with regard to stealing of access to the records having been proved, I do not thing that the petitioner is justified in contending that the enquiry was not properly conducted and that the charge against him was not proved. 18. It is not the case as though there are no evidence. On the other hand, there are some evidence available in the case based on which, the order of the punishment was imposed. Moreover, when the charge relates to the misconduct of the petitioner amounting to loss of confidence, then there is no question of considering the proportionality of punishment especially, when the charges levelled against the petitioner are in respect of stealing access to the records for the purpose of collecting and divulging information from those records, without authorisation as well as misusing the official position with disrespect to his superior officials. The Labour Court has gone into the aspects in detail and ultimately came to such conclusion, which does not warrant an interference by this Court in this writ petition. Further, it is stated by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the second respondent corporation is also not in existence and closed in the year 2005 itself. 19. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no ground made out to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. Further, it is stated by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the second respondent corporation is also not in existence and closed in the year 2005 itself. 19. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no ground made out to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.