JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. Sarma, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Management. Also heard Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/Workman. 2. The Management of the Segunbari T.E. challenges the Award dated 8.6.2006 in the Reference Case No.2/2004, whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh found the dismissal of the workman to be unjustified and thus consequent direction was issued for his reinstatement with back wages. 3. At the relevant time, the respondent No.1 was serving as a factory clerk in the Segunbari T.E. when the Charge Memo dated 9.1.2001 (Annexure-5) was issued where it was alleged that when on 30.11.2000 the factory clerk was entrusted with the bulking/grading of the tea branded “Nayantara” (510 Kgs of B.O.P. tea in 17 bags) prior to their dispatch for sale, the workman was negligent in his work and thereby the sample tea in size, fibre, contents, appearance (Bloom) and liquor varied from one another, causing damage to the prestige and reputation of the company’s tea in the market and also resulted in monetary loss. Since the concerned tea was bulked and packed under the respondent’s supervision, he was charged with gross mis-conduct and the workman was asked to reply to the charges on the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. In his explanation furnished on 14.2.2001 (Annexure-6), the workman denied to have defied the management and pleaded that the concerned tea consignment was sorted and bulked under the supervision of the Asstt. Management Mr. A.K. Sarma and accordingly he prayed for exoneration. 4. However the explanation of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and accordingly and Enquiry Officer was appointed by the management on 12.4.2001 and in the communication marked to the Enquiry Officer and to the workman, the names of 4 witnesses to be adduced on behalf of the management, was listed. 5. The proceeding was started by the enquiry officer on 25.4.2001 during which 4 witnesses were pressed into service by the management and 3 defence witnesses was produced by the workman. 6. The enquiry proceeding was conducted in presence of 2 neutral observers and individual finding was recorded by the enquiry officer on the following issues – “1. Whether on 30.11.2000, the Invoice No.C/175/2000 of the BOP Tea were bulked and packed under the supervision of the workman in the Factory? 2. 6. The enquiry proceeding was conducted in presence of 2 neutral observers and individual finding was recorded by the enquiry officer on the following issues – “1. Whether on 30.11.2000, the Invoice No.C/175/2000 of the BOP Tea were bulked and packed under the supervision of the workman in the Factory? 2. Whether the three samples of three bags under Serial No.3263, 3250 and 3258 of the said Invoice marked “Nayantara” containing 510 Kgs. Of BOP tea in 17 bags varied from one to another, in size, fibre, contents appearance (bloom) and liquor as a result tea are not liked by the buyers as reported to the Management by their Broker M/s – Eastern Tea Brokers of Guwahati? 3. Whether the said variations of BOP Tea caused heavy monetary loss to the Company and whether it damaged the Company’s prestige and reputation if the tea in the market? 4. Whether the workman is solely responsible for the said loss of money and reputation of the Company? 5. Whether the workman disobeyed the Standings instructions of the Management?” 7. On the basis of the evidence, the Enquiry Officer concluded that on 30.11.2000, the Invoice No.C/175/2000 of BOP tea were bulked and packed under the supervision of the charged workman. It was further found that the tea bags marked “Nayantara” containing 510 Kgs of B.O.P. tea in 17 bags varied in size, fibre, contents, appearance (Bloom) and liquor because of which the buyers were misled and this damaged the reputation of the Company’s tea in the market and caused them monetary loss. As the workman was found to have failed to diligently supervise the process of packing/bulking, the charged workman was held responsible for the loss of money and reputation of the T.E.. Thus it was concluded that as a factory clerk, the workman neglected his duties and defied the direction of the management and on that basis, the charges were found to have been proved in the report dated 9.7.2001 8. The T.E. manager then considered the enquiry findings and the charged workman was found to have been committed gross mis-conduct under Clause 10 of the Standing Orders, applicable for the tea sector and considering the gravity of the charge and its impact, the workman was dismissed vide order dated 30.8.2001. The T.E. manager then considered the enquiry findings and the charged workman was found to have been committed gross mis-conduct under Clause 10 of the Standing Orders, applicable for the tea sector and considering the gravity of the charge and its impact, the workman was dismissed vide order dated 30.8.2001. The dismissal gave rise to the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on whether the dismissal was justified and if not, whether the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages. 9. The reference was considered by the learned Tribunal, Dibrugarh which assessed the validity of the enquiry proceeding. According to the Tribunal’s perception, the list of management’s witnesses and documents were not furnished to the workman along with the Charge Sheet and moreover the assistance of a co-worker for his defense was denied to the workman. On the basis of these twin conclusions, the domestic enquiry was declared to be invalid by the learned Tribunal. 10. When enquiry was held to be vitiated, fresh evidence was led by both parties before the learned Tribunal and after weighing the new evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the charges against the workman has not been established. On this basis, the dismissal was held to be unjustified and consequential direction was thus issued for reinstatement with full back wages through the impugned Award dated 8.6.2006. 11.1 Assailing the legality of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, the management contents that the charges were established in a fair enquiry proceeding where due opportunities were made available to the workman to defend the charges and accordingly the merit of the declaration on the invalidity of the enquiry proceeding, is questioned by the management’s advocate. 11.2 Mr. A. Sarma, the learned Counsel submits that the list of four management witnesses was furnished to the workman on 12.4.2001 well before the enquiry proceeding was started on 25.4.2001 and accordingly it is argued that the enquiry was declared to be invalid on erroneous premises. 11.3 The Counsel refers in detail to the evidence and the minutes of the enquiry proceeding to project that the workman fully participated in the enquiry and produced three defence witnesses and he himself cross-examined the management’s witnesses. Moreover at that stage, the respondent never asked for assistance of any co-worker. Accordingly it is argued that wrong finding was given against the enquiry proceeding. Moreover at that stage, the respondent never asked for assistance of any co-worker. Accordingly it is argued that wrong finding was given against the enquiry proceeding. 11.4 Reading the evidence of the 4 management’s witnesses together with the defence evidence given by the co-workers of the workman, Mr. Sarma submits that it was clearly established that on 30.11.2000, the workman was present in the T.E. factory where he was supervising the bulking/branding of 17 tea bags under “Nayantara” mark but those tea bags were misbranded and thus the buyers were misled and they found that the tea sample did not conform to the “Nayantara” tea in size, fibre, contents, appearance (Bloom) and liquor and thus this led to loss of market reputation and also monetary loss for the company. 11.5 In domestic proceedings, the management is expected to prove the charges on preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt and referring to the evidence on record, the management’s lawyer argues that there was enough evidence for the enquiry officer and also for the Industrial Tribunal to conclude that the charge were conclusively established. 12.1 Appearing for the respondent workman, Ms. A. Bhattacharyya the learned Counsel submits that the primary charge is of negligence and such lapses should not be treated as gross mis-conduct under the Standing Orders applicable to the tea sector and on this basis, the punishment of dismissal is contented to be disproportionate to the charge levelled against the workman. 12.2 The learned Counsel refers to the contributory role of the Asstt. Manager who himself was supervising the bulking of 2/3 bags of tea on 30.11.2000 and accordingly it is argued that at best it is a case of joint responsibility and therefore the workman doesn’t deserve the harsh punishment of dismissal. In support of her contention, Ms. Bhattacharyya relies on 2006 (1) GLT 235 (Girish Ch. Sarmah vs. Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.). 13. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. vs. Ludh Budh Singh reported in (1972) 1 SCC 595 , the Apex Court opined that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal was limited to satisfy itself whether a prima facie case is made out by the employer and that the enquiry has been held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and standing orders. vs. Ludh Budh Singh reported in (1972) 1 SCC 595 , the Apex Court opined that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal was limited to satisfy itself whether a prima facie case is made out by the employer and that the enquiry has been held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and standing orders. If the conclusion arrived by the enquiry officer is a possible one on the evidence laid before him, the Tribunal is not expected to substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the enquiry officer, although a different conclusion is possible on the same evidence. 14. The domestic enquiry in the present case was conducted by a neutral person and there were two independent observers present during the proceeding. The workman was provided with full opportunity to defend the charges and in fact he not only adduced three defence witnesses but also cross-examined all the 4 management witnesses. The evidence was carefully evaluated by the enquiry officer and finding was thus recorded on each of the formulated issues, with due reference to the evidence on record. The list of management’s witnesses was furnished well ahead of the enquiry proceeding and the workman handled his own defence and never sought the assistance of any co-worker. 15. The evidence of the management witnesses clearly shows that the workman was summoned to factory and was detailed to bulk the tea ags under consignment No. C/175/2000. Those tea was certified and packaged under the workman’s signature. The work being carried out under the charged workman was supported by the defence witnesses also on all material particulars. Thus it is logical to hold that the evidence laid before the enquiry officer do support the conclusion reached in the enquiry. Moreover the workman was afforded a fair opportunity to defend the charges and therefore in my understanding, the learned Industrial Tribunal should not have disturbed the enquiry conclusions. 16. The next issue to be considered is whether the charges are serious or it is simple case of negligence which can be dealt with lighter penalty. Moreover the workman was afforded a fair opportunity to defend the charges and therefore in my understanding, the learned Industrial Tribunal should not have disturbed the enquiry conclusions. 16. The next issue to be considered is whether the charges are serious or it is simple case of negligence which can be dealt with lighter penalty. Here the specific charge of gross mis-conduct was levelled against the workman and the lapses resulted in loss of prestige and reputation of the tea produced and by the T.E. As the sample tea did not conform to the marked “Nayantara” standard in the sample tea bags, the buyers were misled and this naturally impacted the market reputation of the company. It is also proved through evidence that the charged workman was supervising the bulking/branding of the tea bags against the Invoice No. C/175/2000 and the concerned tea bags were sent out to the market, under the certifying signature of the respondent. In such circumstances, this matter according to me can’t be treated as a simple case of negligence and considering the implication for the T.E. the more serious charge of gross mis-conduct under Standing Order 10(a) is certainly attracted. 17. As regards the plea of joint liability argued by the workman’s lawyer, the cited case of Girish Ch. Sarmah (Supra) pertains to joint liability of the members of the Tender Committee but the facts here certainly doesn’t make out a case of joint liability. This is because the concerned Asstt. Manager Ashok Kr. Sarma was supervising the bulking of tea for separate Consignment No. C/174/2000 and it was the exclusive responsibility of the workman to bulk/brand the tea, under the Consignment No. C/175/2000 and the charge relates to the exclusive responsibility of the respondent. Therefore no mitigating factors are seen in workman’s favour, as this is not a case of joint liability. 18. When the negligent conduct of the workman has resulted in loss of business reputation of the company, it is not a matter of small consequence which can be overlooked. In fact the Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 had held that the management can order for dismissal even for negligence since negligent conduct can lead to loss of confidence in which event, the punishment of dismissal will be justified. In fact the Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 had held that the management can order for dismissal even for negligence since negligent conduct can lead to loss of confidence in which event, the punishment of dismissal will be justified. Similar view was taken on the punishment of dismissal resulting from loss of confidence in Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. vs. H. Amaresh reported in (2006) 6 SCC 187 . 19. In this case, the evidence adequately proves the charges and the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer is supported by relevant material produced through a valid proceeding. The charged workman was provided adequate opportunity and there was no infringement of the principles of natural justice. Therefore in my judgment, the learned Tribunal erred in answering the reference against the management. 20. For the foregoing discussion and finding that no perversity is seen in the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer, I hold that the intervention of the learned Industrial Tribunal with the dismissal order was unjustified. With this conclusion, the Award dated 8.6.2006 in the Reference No.2/2004 is held to be invalid and the same is quashed. This case is thus allowed. Since the concerned workman was paid the last wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, and he has already attained the superannuation age on 14.1.2014, I leave the parties to bear their own cost.