JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. By medium of this petition, petitioner-workman (herein after, “workman”) has laid challenge to Award dated 15.9.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Ref. No. 69 of 2006, whereby claim of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts as emerge from the record are that the appropriate Government, in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after, “Act”), made following terms of reference to the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, for adjudication: “Whether the dismissal from service w.e.f. 2.12.2003 of Shri Som Dutt Sharma S/o Late Shri Ganga Ram workman by the Management of M/s Sidhrtha Super Spinning Mills Ltd., Nilala Khera, Nalagarh, District Solan, HP w.e.f. 1.12.2003 after conducting domestic enquiry by the management is legal and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation, the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?” 3. Petitioner by way of statement of claim stated before the Tribunal that he was appointed as Librarian by the respondent No.2-Company (hereinafter, “respondent-company”) on 15.6.1984 and worked as such till 2.12.2003, when his services were illegally and wrongly terminated without notice and against the mandatory provisions of the Act. Workman further claimed that on 22.9.2003, he was issued a charge sheet under the Certified Standing Orders, whereby he was called upon to explain his position vis-à-vis alleged charge sheet. Vide reply dated 25.9.2003 (sic 25.9.2007), workman denied all the charges but the respondent-Company dissatisfied with the explanation having been rendered by the workman, appointed one Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate who at the relevant time was junior of Shri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, presently working as Consultant with the respondent-Company, as an Enquiry Officer in order to enquire into the facts of the case. As such, the enquiry was a mere eye-wash. Workman further claimed that the Enquiry Officer refused to record the statements of four witnesses, as a result of which, grave prejudice was caused to him. Workman further claimed that since he had raised voice against agreement dated 31.2.2003, , respondent-Company was hell bent to make him scapegoat. As such, the enquiry was a mere eye-wash. Workman further claimed that the Enquiry Officer refused to record the statements of four witnesses, as a result of which, grave prejudice was caused to him. Workman further claimed that since he had raised voice against agreement dated 31.2.2003, , respondent-Company was hell bent to make him scapegoat. Workman further averred that there was a case registered under Section 406 IPC against one Devinder Jain, MD of the respondent-Company and for this reason also the Management of respondent-Company was maltreating the workman, on one pretext or the other as workman was one of the prosecution witnesses in that case. Workman further averred that a false case under Section 354 IPC was also got registered against him and in this regard, he had made a representation, but his services were terminated without notice and in an illegal manner without resorting to the mandatory provisions of the Act, as such, workman deserves to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including back wages. 4. Respondent-Company by way of reply to the statement of claim, refuted the claim of the workman, by raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability. On merits also, respondent-Company refuted the claim of the workman by stating that the workman continued to remain in employment with the respondent-Company with effect from 15.6.1984 till 2.12.2003, when his services were dismissed. It was denied that his services had been dismissed in an illegal and improper manner against the provisions of the Act. Respondent-Company claimed that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the workman on the basis of a written complaint having been filed by one Shri Vashisht Pandey, wherein it had been alleged that he had tried to outrage the modesty of his wife while residing in the bachelor quarters of the labour colony. Said Vashisht Pandey had also lodged a complaint with the police regarding same incident. Respondent-Company further claimed that on the basis of allegations having been made by the complainant Vashisht Pandey, Management decided to conduct an independent inquiry against the workman in order to ascertain truth of allegations leveled against him. Accordingly, a person namely Shri Sanjeev Sharma was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who conducted enquiry strictly in terms of Certified Standing Orders and principles of natural justice. Accordingly, a person namely Shri Sanjeev Sharma was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who conducted enquiry strictly in terms of Certified Standing Orders and principles of natural justice. Respondent-Company further claimed that due and admissible opportunity of being heard was afforded to the workman by the Enquiry Officer before submitting final report. In nutshell, respondent-Company claimed that the Enquiry Officer having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, submitted his report, on the basis of which, respondent-Company issued show cause notice-cum-proposed penalty, calling upon the workman to file reply. Pursuant to reply having been filed by the workman to the show cause notice, respondent-Company being dissatisfied with the explanation rendered by the workman, dismissed him from service. Respondent-Company further claimed that the management of the respondent-Company having regard to the misconduct of the workman, particularly his involvement in an immoral act, imposed penalty of dismissal, that too, after resorting to the provisions of the Act as well as principles of natural justice. 5. Learned Tribunal below, on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the respective-parties, answered the reference in negative and rejected the claim of the workman. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, workman approached this Court, by way of present petition, seeking following main reliefs: “ (i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing the impugned award dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure P-10). (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the salary for the period for which petitioner remained out of job and other benefits which have not been paid to the petitioner since 2003. The entire arrears may kindly be directed to be paid to the petitioner alongwith 12% interest from the date of its due.” 6. Mr. J.R. Poswal, learned counsel representing the workman, vehemently argued that impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, as such, same deserves to be set aside. Mr. Mr. J.R. Poswal, learned counsel representing the workman, vehemently argued that impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, as such, same deserves to be set aside. Mr. Poswal, while referring to the impugned award as well as record, vehemently argued that learned Tribunal below failed to take into consideration that the workman was working with the respondent-Company from the year 1984, without any interruption and as such his services could not be terminated in a casual manner without resorting to the provisions of the Act. While referring to the impugned award, Mr. Poswal, strenuously argued that learned Tribunal below before returning findings on the controversy at hand, failed to frame proper issues and as such faulted in returning findings on issues No. 1,2 and 4, because, admittedly, these are without any reasons. Mr. Poswal, further contended that the learned Tribunal below failed to appreciate that there was nothing on record suggestive of the fact that respondent-Company before terminating the services of the workman, issued any notice as envisaged under the Act, to the workman, calling upon him to explain his conduct and as such impugned award can not be allowed to sustain. Mr. Poswal further contended that since Smt. Sarita Pandey, was not a worker in the respondent-Company, no action, if any, could be taken by the respondent-Company on her complaint, especially when in no manner, she could be termed as “workman' as defined under the Act and as such no domestic inquiry could be initiated against the workman and thus the impugned action of dismissing the workman by the respondent- Company, ought to have been quashed and set aside by the learned Tribunal below while adjudicating the reference made to it by the appropriate Government. Mr. Poswal, further contended that the respondent-Company could not terminate the services of the workman on the basis of domestic enquiry, more particularly, in terms of provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, wherein enquiry can only be conducted on the basis of complaint of a workman. Mr. Poswal, further contended that the respondent-Company could not terminate the services of the workman on the basis of domestic enquiry, more particularly, in terms of provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, wherein enquiry can only be conducted on the basis of complaint of a workman. But in the instant case, complaint has been lodged by Sarita Pandey, who was not a worker at any point of time and as such action of the respondent-Company in dismissing the services of the workman on the basis of domestic enquiry deserves to be set aside. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Poswal, forcefully contended that a bare perusal of impugned award clearly suggests that learned Tribunal below failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result of which, grave prejudice has been caused to the workman, who admittedly, was not allowed to examine his witnesses by the Enquiry Officer, during the disciplinary proceedings. He further contended that the learned Tribunal below miserably failed to take note of the judgment Ext. PA, placed on record by the workman, to demonstrate that he was acquitted in criminal case having been filed by aforesaid Sarita Pandey. Since workman was acquitted in criminal proceedings, he was entitled to the benefit of same in the domestic enquiry proceedings. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Poswal, prayed that impugned order of dismissal having been issued by the respondent- Company, may be set aside after setting aside the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below and workman be held entitled to reinstatement with back wages. 7. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel representing the respondent-Company, supported the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below. Mr. Mahajan, while referring to the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below vehemently argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below and same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and as such there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the same. While refuting the contentions having been raised by the learned counsel representing the workman, Mr. Mahajan strenuously argued that perusal of award as well as record clearly suggests that the workman was unsuccessful in proving that domestic enquiry against him was not conducted in accordance with law by not resorting to the principles of natural justice. While refuting the contentions having been raised by the learned counsel representing the workman, Mr. Mahajan strenuously argued that perusal of award as well as record clearly suggests that the workman was unsuccessful in proving that domestic enquiry against him was not conducted in accordance with law by not resorting to the principles of natural justice. Mr.Mahajan, specifically invited attention of this Court to the reasoning having been given by learned Tribunal below, to demonstrate that each and every aspect of the matter has been dealt with meticulously by the learned Tribunal below and as such there is no scope of interference by this Court, especially in view of findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal below. In this regard he placed reliance upon judgment passed in case Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. 2014 AIR SCW 3157. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Mahajan, further contended that acquittal in criminal proceedings can not be ground for automatic reinstatement, especially when individual is held guilty in domestic enquiry. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Mahajan, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned award as well as record. 9. During proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the impugned award as well as other documentary evidence available on record, perusal whereof nowhere suggests that the learned Tribunal below misread and misconstrued evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, rather close scrutiny of impugned award clearly suggests that learned Tribunal below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and there is no scope of interference by this Court. However, with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the submissions having been made by the learned counsel representing the workman, this Court carefully examined evidence led on record by the respective parties. Learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, who happened to be junior of Mr. However, with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the submissions having been made by the learned counsel representing the workman, this Court carefully examined evidence led on record by the respective parties. Learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, who happened to be junior of Mr. Rajeev Sahrma, Advocate was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the management of respondent-Company solely with a view to defeat the claim of the workman but perusal of impugned award as well as record clearly suggests that no objection, if any, was ever raised by the workman at the time of appointment of Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, as Enquiry Officer, who at the time of appointment, called upon the parties and explained the procedure to be followed in the enquiry proceedings. If workman was at all aggrieved with the appointment of Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate as an Enquiry Officer, he could always raise objection, if any, before the respondent-Company or the Enquiry Officer stating therein reasons, if any, against appointment of Sanjeev Sharma, as Enquiry Officer. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that at the relevant time, workman raised any objection with regard to appointment of Sanjeev Sharma, as an Enquiry Officer. Similarly, this Court sees no force in the contentions having been raised by the workman that no opportunity of examining witnesses was afforded by the aforesaid Enquiry Officer because learned Tribunal below has specifically recorded while returning its findings that there is nothing on record to show that which were the four witnesses, he wanted to examine and Enquiry Officer did not allow him to examine. Though the workman has stated that during enquiry proceedings, he was given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses of management but he was not allowed to examine his witnesses. But as has been notice above, workman was unable to prove before learned Tribunal below that which were those witnesses, whom he wanted to examine and as such there is no illegality and infirmity in the findings returned by the Court below that workman was unable to prove allegations against Enquiry Officer, Sanjeev Sharma. But as has been notice above, workman was unable to prove before learned Tribunal below that which were those witnesses, whom he wanted to examine and as such there is no illegality and infirmity in the findings returned by the Court below that workman was unable to prove allegations against Enquiry Officer, Sanjeev Sharma. Similarly, nothing was placed on record by the workman to suggest that Sanjeev Sharma, being junior of one Shri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, who happened to Consultant of the respondent-Company, was biased against him in any manner and he did not conduct enquiry in a fair and proper manner by resorting to the principles of natural justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been recorded by the learned Tribunal below that record clearly suggests that the workman was afforded due opportunity to be represented by Defence Assistant of his choice by the Enquiry Officer and to avail opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent-Company. Hence, this Court sees no force in the contentions having been raised by the learned counsel representing the workman that learned Tribunal below has failed to appreciate the evidence its right perspective. Similarly, record clearly reveals that domestic enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in a most fair manner and due and admissible documents were made available to the workman during enquiry proceedings and pursuant to notice Exts. RC and RD, workman himself joined enquiry and examined witnesses. Learned Tribunal below after perusing zimni orders having been passed by Enquiry Officer, concluded that it clearly suggests that after completion of enquiry, report was given to the workman and he had also received notice from the respondent-Company regarding proposed penalty Ext. RD. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, Enquiry Officer, while deposing before the learned Tribunal below as RW-1 specifically proved that he was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the respondent-Company and he conducted enquiry against workman, after sending notice to both the parties specifically disclosing procedure to be followed by him while conducting enquiry. This Court, after carefully examining deposition of Sanjeev Sharma, sees no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned Tribunal below that domestic enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with Certified Standing Orders. 10. This Court, after carefully examining deposition of Sanjeev Sharma, sees no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned Tribunal below that domestic enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with Certified Standing Orders. 10. Now, the Court would be adverting to the another contention raised by the learned counsel representing the workman, that no domestic enquiry could be initiated against him on the complaint of Smt. Sarita Pandey, who was not a workman. This Court, sees no force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel representing the workman because admittedly, complaint in the present case was lodged by the husband of Sarita Pandey i.e. Vashisht Pandey, who was admittedly workman as defined under Industrial Disputes Act. Since serious allegations were leveled against workman, by the husband of Sarita Pandey, respondent-Company in its wisdom thought it proper to get the matter investigated and as such it can not be said that no enquiry, could be initiated against the workman, on the basis of complaint having been made by the wife of fellow workman. Since a workman of the Company had specifically complained against the workman, respondent-Company rightly conducted enquiry against workman and after offering due opportunity of hearing, awarded appropriate punishment, more over, record nowhere suggests that the workman was able to prove on record, motive, if any, of husband of Sarita Pandey, to falsely implicate him in the case and as such aforesaid argument having been made by the workman deserves outright rejection. 11. As far as judgment of acquittal of workman, who has been held guilty in enquiry proceedings, vide Ext. PA in criminal proceedings having been initiated at the behest of wife of fellow workman, Vashisht Pandey is concerned, same was rightly not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal below because it is well settled by now that once an employee is acquitted by a criminal court, as a matter of right he /she can not be reinstated in service. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 , wherein Apex Court has held as under: “26. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 , wherein Apex Court has held as under: “26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rule for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on eth ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules, do not provide so. 27. We have also come across cases where the service rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such cases, the re-instatement is automatic. There may be cases where the service rules provide in spite of domestic enquiry, if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules. 28. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules. 28. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings as against the respondent, in its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 12. Reliance is further placed on judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 and State of West Bengal v. Sankar Ghosh, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 610 , wherein above judgment has been followed. This judgment has further been followed in Baljinder Pal Kaur v. State of Punjab, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 671 . 13. As far as judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. is concerned, there can not be any quarrel with the settled proposition of law that the Courts while examining correctness and genuineness of the Award passed by Tribunal has very limited powers to appreciate the evidence adduced before the Tribunal below, especially the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal below and same can not be questioned in writ proceedings and writ court can not act as an appellate Court. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment having been relied upon by the learned counsel representing the Management, clearly suggests that error of law which is apparent on the face of record can be corrected by writ Court but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held in the aforesaid judgment that if finding of fact is based upon no evidence that would be recorded as error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that in regard to findings of fact recorded by Tribunal, writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording said findings, tribunal erroneously refused to admit admissible evidence or erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which influenced impugned findings. It would be profitable to reproduce following paras of the judgment: “16. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that in regard to findings of fact recorded by Tribunal, writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording said findings, tribunal erroneously refused to admit admissible evidence or erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which influenced impugned findings. It would be profitable to reproduce following paras of the judgment: “16. ………The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior Courts or Tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is no entitled to act as an Appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened for questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the interference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised. 14. In the instant case, as has been discussed in detail, learned Tribunal below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and there is no error of law or fact apparent on record, which can be corrected by this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction. 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid law having been laid down by the Apex Court, this Court sees no force in the contentions having been raised by the workman that learned Tribunal below ought to have allowed his claim in view of judgment rendered by criminal Court in criminal proceedings initiated at the behest of wife of Vashisht Pandey. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being without merits. Award dated 15.9.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Ref. No. 69 of 2006 is upheld. Pending applications are disposed of.