JUDGMENT Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J. 1. The legality of the award dated 30-6-2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Silchar in Reference Case No. 13 of 2000 setting aside the order passed by the Management of the petitioner-Doyapore Tea Estate, Udarbond, Cachar dismissing the respondent No. 2 on the basis of the enquiry report of the enquiry officer appointed by it, is called into question in this writ petition. The respondent No. 2 is a worker under the petitioner-Doyapore-Tea Estate ('the petitioner" for short). The case of the petitioner is that by the Memorandum dated 28.12.1996, the Garden Manager of the petitioner had issued two charge sheets alleging misconduct of illegally constructing a katcha house in the vacant plot belonging to the petitioner without the permission of the Management, for disobeying the order of the Management to desist from constructing the said house and for selling the said house to one Vedha Pashi in Bunglow Tillah line which was allotted to her by the Management as incidence of her employment The respondent 2 was also accused of hurling filthy words at one Shivbhajan Singh on 26.12.96 when he was on duty. On receipt of the charge sheet, respondent 2 submitted her reply on 25.1.1997 wherein she did not deny such construction but did assert that the house which was allotted to her had broken down whereafter she started residing at the house of the brother of her husband. But, according to her, her residing there had caused inconvenience to him and his family whereupon she was compelled to construct a new house and started living thereon and, therefore, prayed that the new house constructed by her upon which she was residing be allotted to her. 2. After making claims and counter-claims between the Management and the respondent No. 2, the Manager of the petitioner-Tea Estate served on her a fresh charge sheet on 7.3.97 alleging that she was provided with a quarter as incidence of her employment, but it was reported that she had allowed Vedha Pashi and Madan Santhal to occupy that quarter and was directed through the notice dated 3.2.97 to utilise the quarter allotted to her and desist the quarter being from occupied by some other persons. She was further charged with forcibly encroaching upon the garden land at Section No. 10 and of refusing to vacate the same despite the direction of the Management to do so. She was further charged with forcibly encroaching upon the garden land at Section No. 10 and of refusing to vacate the same despite the direction of the Management to do so. As the charges levelled against her amounts to gross misconduct, she was asked to submit her reply and denied the charges, which she did. Since her explanation was found to be not satisfactory, the Management ordered a domestic enquiry and appointed one Shri S.K. Dey, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Silchar (retired) to inquire into the charges. She was also informed that she would be given full opportunity to conduct her defence by examining her witnesses and cross-examining the witnesses of the management. She was also asked to intimate the list of her witnesses to the Management so that arrangement could be made by them to ensure their attendance during the inquiry, etc. 3. According to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer thereafter conducted the enquiry by following the due process of law in which the respondent 2 also participated and proposed to examine four witnesses on her behalf. She was allowed to be assisted by her husband in defence. The respondent No. 2 examined three of her witnesses whereas the Management examined six witnesses, who were examined in her presence, her husband and the independent observer who happened to be a Union official at the garden level being a member of Bungalow Panchayat. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the respondent No. 2 guilty of the charges, which, according to him, constituted gross misconduct as per the certified standing orders of the Tea Estate applicable to the respondent No. 2. The enquiry report was submitted on 20.4.1997. On the basis of the enquiry report, which was accepted, the Management passed the order dismissing the respondent No. 2 from service. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute, which was ultimately referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Silchar, Cachar under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 with the following terms of reference: (a) Whether the Management Doyapur Tea Estate is justified in dismissing the service of Smt Anjali Santal, permanent worker of the garden. (b) If not, is she entitled to the re-in-statement with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof? 4. (b) If not, is she entitled to the re-in-statement with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof? 4. Before the Tribunal, both the Management and the respondent No. 2 filed their written statements and adduced their evidence. The Tribunal recorded the findings that the house in question was constructed by the respondent No. 2 on the Government khas land which was allotted to her family members; that Dayapore Tea Estate has no right over the said plot of land; that the respondent No. 2 was falsely charge-sheeted and was dismissed illegally; that the charges were vague due to omission to mention the date, time and place of incident leaving to the imagination of the delinquent to find out for himself the manner in which the incident took place. The Tribunal also held that the enquiry officer was a professional enquiry officer and used to conduct many cases in the Barak Valley and even in Tripura State. He also came to the garden by the vehicle of the Management for conducting the enquiry and received fees from them and had pecuniary interest howsoever small in the subject matter of the enquiry, which would be a disqualification: he apparently acted upon the instruction of the Management to serve their purpose. About the charge that the delinquent sold the quarter allotted to her to Vedha Pashi and Moren Swental, the Tribunal held that the Management could not prove it and that, on the contrary, the Management could not also prove that the quarter at Bungalow Tillah was allotted to her father-in-law. According to the Tribunal, there was also no evidence to prove the delinquent misbehaved with Sivaswaran Singh this gentleman was not even examined by the enquiry officer. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal overturned the findings of the enquiry officer and concluded that the management was not justified in dismissing the delinquent from service; the delinquent should be reinstated forthwith with full back wages. 5. Unfolding his submissions, Mr. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal overturned the findings of the enquiry officer and concluded that the management was not justified in dismissing the delinquent from service; the delinquent should be reinstated forthwith with full back wages. 5. Unfolding his submissions, Mr. P.K. Roy, the learned counsel for the Management, contends that the enquiry was conducted by an independent, experienced and knowledgeable person, who had personally appeared as a witness before the Tribunal along with other Management witnesses and proved the enquiry report, but their evidence could not be shaken on the aspect of observance of natural justice and due process; the Tribunal has gone overboard in interfering with the findings of the inquiry. The learned counsel maintains that the Tribunal has completely overlooked the scope and ambit of judicial review against the decision of a disciplinary authority and acted illegally in upsetting the decision of the disciplinary authority. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the view taken by the disciplinary authority that the respondent 2 is guilty of misconduct is, on the basis of the materials on record, a possible view and if two views on a matter are possible, then it is the duty of the Tribunal not to substitute its view for the view of the disciplinary authority but uphold that view of the disciplinary authority. The learned counsel also submits that the fact that the respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the charge by a criminal court cannot affect the finding in a departmental enquiry since the standard of proof in a criminal trial is different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries. The learned counsel, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to quash the impugned award and restored the decision of the management On the other hand, Mr. U.K. Nair, the learned Amicus Curiae, supports the impugned award and submits that there is absolutely no reason for interfering with the impugned award which was passed after due observance of principles of natural justice and is based on solid evidence. 6. The scope of interference by a Tribunal or, for that matter, by a writ court in the decision of a domestic enquiry is limited. It is only when the decision suffers from illegality, procedural impropriety and perversity that the interference of Tribunal or this Court is called for. 6. The scope of interference by a Tribunal or, for that matter, by a writ court in the decision of a domestic enquiry is limited. It is only when the decision suffers from illegality, procedural impropriety and perversity that the interference of Tribunal or this Court is called for. The legal position is recently reiterated by the Apex Court in State of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 where it said: 7. It is now well-settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be the grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, Courts will not interfere with the findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S)80 :(1996) 32 ATC 44, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham reported in (1997)7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC(L&S) 1806, Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana reported in (1999) 5 SCC 762 :1999 SCC (L&S) 1036 and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shasikaant S. Patil reported in (2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144.) 7. In discussing the nature of jurisdiction exercised by an Industrial Tribunal when adjudicating a dispute relating to the dismissal or discharge, the Apex Court in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130 (cited with approval by the Apex Court in The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. In discussing the nature of jurisdiction exercised by an Industrial Tribunal when adjudicating a dispute relating to the dismissal or discharge, the Apex Court in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130 (cited with approval by the Apex Court in The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Ltd. v. The Management & Ors., AIR 1973 SC 1227 ) observed as follows: Undoubtedly, the management of a concern has power to direct its own internal management and discipline; but the power is not unlimited and when a dispute arises, Industrial Tribunals have been given the power to see whether the termination of service of a workman is justified and to give appropriate relief. In cases of dismissal on misconduct, the Tribunal does not, however, act as a Court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management. It will interfere (i) when there is want of good faith; (ii) where there is victimization or unfair labour practice, (iii) when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice and (iv) when on the materials the finding is completely baseless or perverse. 8. It is against the backdrop of the aforesaid parameters laid down by the Apex Court that I propose to examine the rival contentions of the parties. It may be recalled that the respondent No. 2 is charged with disobeying the order of the Management to desist from completing the constriction of the said katcha house in a vacant land belonging to the Management and for allowing one Vedha Pashi and Madan Sental to occupy the quarter allotted to her as an incidence of her employment, of refusing to vacate the garden land at Section No. 10, which was forcibly occupied by her against the direction of the Management, of leaving the house at Bungalow Tillah Line allotted to her without the permission of the Management and of refusing to shift to that quarter contrary to the direction of the Management and of using filthy words to Shri Shivbhajan Singh on 26-12-1996 while he was on duty. 9. Before proceeding further, I may also refer to the findings of the enquiry officer. 9. Before proceeding further, I may also refer to the findings of the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer recorded the findings that all the witnesses of the management such as Nirmal Chouhan, Rampati Rikisson, Hira Shil, Hareshyam Gareri, Rambilash Bawri and Susanta Karmakar had stated that the respondent 2 constructed a house in Section No. 10 of the garden. That apart, her reply dated 25.1.97 at Ext 2 to the show cause dated 28.12.1996, she had stated that she stayed at the house of her brother-in-law as her house was damaged, but due to difficulties faced by her, she was compelled to construct anew house where she lived. She had, therefore, prayed that she be reinstated to her work and be allotted her the house as done by the company. The following are the conclusions of the enquiry officer against the respondent No. 2: (a) constructing a house in Section No. 10 without permission of the management on a plot of garden land; (b) disobeying the management's order to desist from completing construction of the said house when construction was in progress; (c) selling to one Vedo Pashi the house in Bungalow Tillah Lane which was allotted to her by the management as an incidence of her employment and allowing the said house to be occupied by Veda Pashi. 10. In my opinion, the findings of the enquiry officer do not warrant the interference of the Tribunal. All the witnesses tendered by the Management are unanimous in stating that the respondent No. 2 had constructed a house on Section No. 10 of the garden. The fact that the house in question was constructed by the respondent No. 2 at Section No. 10 is also admitted by the witnesses adduced by the respondent No. 2. The case of the respondent No. 2, however, is that the land on which he constructed a house was given to her by her father-in-law; that at that time, there was an Englishman as the Manager, who said that the Ceiling law (land ceiling law) had been passed and all land would be taken away by the Government and that whoever of the workers could occupy as much land as he could. She further testified that her father-in-law also cleared the jungles and occupied about eight bighas of land; that as per her information, the land was ceiling surplus land and that the English Manager who advised him to occupy the land clearing the jungle did not say anything in written nor did he point out the area (to be cleared of jungles and occupied). Defence witness, Shefali Santhal testified that the house of respondent No. 2 had been constructed by her father-in-law, who is now dead, but she did not know when the house was constructed and whether or nor it was constructed with the permission of the Management 11. In my considered view, the evidence of both the parties, as noticed above, have clinchingly established that the land at Section No. 10 upon which the house in question was constructed originally belonged to the Management The ownership of the Management over Section No. 10 was also recognised by the respondent No. 2, who, in her reply dated 25.1.1997 (Ext.-2) to the show cause, had also sought for allotment thereof to her thereby recognising the ownership of the Management over the land. Her case, however, is that it was a surplus land, which was allotted to her father-in-law by the then Manager of the garden. If the land had indeed been allotted to her father-in-law by the then Manager of the Tea Garden as claimed by her, why should she now seek allotment from the Management? In my judgment, this is inconsistent with her claim that the landed property was given to her father-in-law. Moreover, she could not produce any shred of evidence to prove with documentary evidence that the land was allotted to her father-in-law by the then Manager of the Tea garden. Nor is she able to establish that the landed property is a surplus land under the land ceiling law. The burden of proof is on her to establish that the landed property had ceased to belong to the management; that the same was allotted to her father-in-law and that the house was constructed by him. The oral evidences adduced by her are far from convincing. Under the circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the ownership of the disputed landed property can continue to be vested with the Management till now by invoking the rule of presumption of continuance retrospectively. The oral evidences adduced by her are far from convincing. Under the circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the ownership of the disputed landed property can continue to be vested with the Management till now by invoking the rule of presumption of continuance retrospectively. The respondent No. 2, in not vacating the said land at Section No. 10 with the house standing thereon, has disobeyed the direction of her superior authority, which amounts to misconduct. Therefore, the disciplinary authority in holding that the charge against the respondent No. 2, at least to this extent, proved, do commit any perversity warranting the interference of the Tribunal. 12. The rule of presumption of continuance retrospectively came up for consideration before the Apex Court recently in State of A.P. v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co., (2013) 9 SCC 319 was decided thus: 21. The principle enshrined in Section 110 of the Evidence At is based on public policy with the objecting of preventing persons from committing breach of peace by taking law into their own hands, however good their title over the land in question may be. It is for this purpose that the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 145 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Sections 154 And158 of the Penal code, 1860 were enacted. All the aforesaid provisions have the same object The said presumption is read, under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and applies only in a case where mere is no proof, or very little proof of ownership on either side. The maxim "possession follows title" is applicable in case proof of actual possession cannot reasonably be expected, for instance, in the case of wastelands, or nothing is known about possession one way or another. Presumption of title as a result of possession, can arise only where facts disclose that no title vests in any party. Possession of the plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful, and title of the plaintiff is not proved. It certainly does not mean that because a man has title over some land, he is necessarily in possession of it. It in fact means, that if at any time a man with title was in possession of the said property, the law always allows the presumption that such possession in continuation of the title vested in him. It certainly does not mean that because a man has title over some land, he is necessarily in possession of it. It in fact means, that if at any time a man with title was in possession of the said property, the law always allows the presumption that such possession in continuation of the title vested in him. A person must establish that he has continued possession of the suit property, the law allows the presumption that such possession was in continuation of the title vested in him. A person must establish that he has continued possession of the suit property, while the other side claiming title, must make out a case of trespass/encroachment, etc. Where the apparent title is with the plaintiffs, it is incumbent upon the defendant, that in order to displace this claim of apparent title and to establish beneficial title in himself, he must establish by way of satisfactory evidence, circumstances that favour his version. Even, a revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof; both forward and backward, can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act. 13. With due respect, this is consistent with the decision of the Apex Court in Ambika Prassad Thakur & Ors. v. Maharaj Kamal Singh & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 605 , where it held that if a thing or a state of things is shown to exist, an inference of its continuity within a reasonably proximate time born forwards and backwards may sometimes be drawn. The presumption of future continuance is noticed in Illustration (d) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In appropriate cases, an inference of the continuity of a thing or a state things backwards may be drawn under this section, though on this point the section does not give a separate illustration. It further held that the rule that the presumption of continuance may operate retrospectively has been recognised both in India and England and that the broad observation by Calcutta High Court that there is no rule of evidence by which one can presume the continuity of things backwards cannot be supported, though the presumption of continuity weakens with the passage of time. In my judgment, the Tribunal should not have interfered with the decision of the management, which are based on the findings of the enquiry officer. The law is well-settled that if there is some evidence to support the conclusion of the disciplinary authority, a Tribunal or a writ Court cannot interfere therewith, after all, it is not the business of the Tribunal or of this Court to substitute its view for the view taken by the disciplinary authority. The respondent No. 2, in not vacating the said land at Section No. 10 with the house standing thereon, has disobeyed the direction of her superior authority, which amounts to misconduct. Therefore, the disciplinary authority in holding that the charge against the respondent No. 2, at least to this extent, is proved, did not commit any perversity or illegality warranting the interference of the Tribunal. In so tar as the other charges are concerned, it is not necessary to examine the findings thereon as the law is well-settled that even if one of the charges, held proved and sufficient for imposition of penalty by the disciplinary authority, the court would be loam to interfere with that part of the order.? See State of U.P. & Ors. v. Nanda Kishore Shukla, (1996) 3 SCC 750 . As already noticed, one of the charges has been found to be proved and the charge so proved amounts to misconduct. Therefore, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the decision of the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent No. 2 from service. The offshoot of the foregoing discussion is that this writ petition succeeds. The impugned award is hereby set aside. The order of the disciplinary authority is, accordingly, restored. No cost.