ORDER : G.R. Swaminathan, J. 1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/workman. 2. This is a second round of litigation. The workman had earlier succeeded before the Labour Court and an award dated 07.11.2016 was passed in his favour by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in I.D. No. 89 of 2015. The same was challenged before this Court and this Court by order dated 28.03.2018 in W.P (MD). No. 22799 of 2016 had set aside the said award and remanded the matter to the file of the Labour Court. Pursuant to the order of remand, the matter was taken up by the Labour Court and again an award has been passed in favour of the workman. The Management questions the said award in this writ petition. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner Management submits that the respondent workman was employed as an Operator and that he was issued with a letter of warning on 14.03.2012. It is the case of the Management that angered by the issuance of such a warning letter, the workman along with few others had confronted his superior, namely, one Thiru. N. Selvaraman during the night hours of 29.03.2012 and assaulted him. This led to initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the workman. A charge memo dated 16.04.2012 was issued. The workman submitted his explanation. A domestic enquiry was conducted and a finding was rendered therein that the charges framed against the workman stood proved. After issuing show cause notice, the respondent was dismissed from service by order dated 28.03.2012. 4. The workman raised an industrial dispute and the same was taken on file by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in I.D. No. 89 of 2015. The cause of action, which was the basis of the impugned disciplinary action, was also the subject matter of criminal prosecution. The workman wanted to adduce additional evidence therein by bringing on record the First Information Report and other documents connected to the criminal case. The application filed by the workman for adducing additional evidence was allowed and after taking into account the additional evidence an award came to be passed in favour of the workman on 07.11.2016. The said award was questioned in W.P (MD). No. 22799 of 2016. The application filed by the workman for adducing additional evidence was allowed and after taking into account the additional evidence an award came to be passed in favour of the workman on 07.11.2016. The said award was questioned in W.P (MD). No. 22799 of 2016. It was contented by the Management that when the fairness of the domestic enquiry was not challenged, it was not open to the Labour Court to look into any additional evidence with regard to the guilt or otherwise in respect of the charges. Since the additional evidence was considered before passing the award to hold that the workman was innocent, this Court set aside the said award and remitted the matter to the file of the Labour Court for fresh consideration. After remand, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the workman were not proved and in that view of the matter, set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Management against the respondent herein. What went into the mind of the Labour Court is evident from paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 of the impugned award. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/workman wanted this Court to sustain the impugned award. He primarily contended that the only witness examined in support of the charge was Selvaraman and none else. In the very nature of things the incident admittedly had taken place in an open place near the Mill gate. Therefore, definitely there would have been quite a few witnesses to the occurrence. In any event, the security guard would have been there. None of them were examined. He also would point out that Thiru. Selvaraman the star or rather the sole witness for the Management gave equivocal answers when questions were put to him with regard to the criminal case. 6. The learned counsel also placed reliance on an order dated 16.09.2009 passed by the learned Judge of this Court in W.P (MD). No. 1490 of 2002 between Management of Neycer India Limited and The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore and Another. The learned counsel placed particular reliance on paragraph Nos. 17, 21 and 22 of the said order. They read as under:- "17. It is also not in dispute that there were other witnesses who have seen the occurrence and who also said to have seen the posters. The learned counsel placed particular reliance on paragraph Nos. 17, 21 and 22 of the said order. They read as under:- "17. It is also not in dispute that there were other witnesses who have seen the occurrence and who also said to have seen the posters. Therefore, there is no explanation given by the petitioner for not examining the other witnesses. In so far as M.W. 3 is concerned he is the security guard incharge. He is also said to have given the complaint to the management through the security officer. The security officer Mr. Mariappan, has not been examined and show cause notice has been issued on 21.10.1994 itself. That is reason, why the Labour Court has found that the non-examination of the security officer through whom the complaint was given is fatal to the case of the petitioner. Admittedly, the second witness gave the complaint on the next day. There is also no explanation as to why the third witness has not stopped are prevented the second respondent from indulging in the alleged act. Further, the labour Court found that the officers have not been examined about the damages caused by the affixing of the poster. The Labour Court also found that M.W. 1 has not seen the contents of the wall paper. 21. Similarly in the judgment reported 2007 (3) LLN 128 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased observation is as follows:- 29. From the above decisions, it is clear that our legal system also has accepted the doctrine of proportionality. The question, however, is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court was justified in invoking and applying the doctrine of proportionality. In our judgment, the answer must be in the negative. Normally, when disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and finding of fact has been recorded in such inquiry, it cannot be interfered with unless such finding is based on "no evidence" or is perverse, or is such that no reasonable man in the circumstances of the case would have reached such finding. In the present case, four charges had been levelled against the workmen. An inquiry was instituted and findings recorded that all the four charges were proved. In the present case, four charges had been levelled against the workmen. An inquiry was instituted and findings recorded that all the four charges were proved. The Labour Court considered the grievances of the workmen, negatived all the contentions raised by them, held the inquiry to be in consonance with principles of natural justice and findings supported by evidence. Keeping in view the charges proved, the Labour Court, in our opinion, rightly held that the punishment imposed on workmen could not be said to be harsh so as to interfere with it. 30. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court was not right in exercising power of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and virtually substituting its own judgment for the judgment of the management and or of the Labour Court. To us, the learned counsel for the appellant-bank is also right in submitting that apart from charges 1 and 2, charges 3 and 4 were "extremely serious" in nature and could not have been underestimated or underrated by the High Court. 22. The said judgment would show that in a case where the findings of the enquiry officer is such that no reasonable man in the circumstances of the case would have rejected the said findings then the said findings are liable to be set aside. What the first respondent has done in the present case is that the findings of the enquiry officer are wrong and in support of the same the first respondent has given his reasoning from the same, it cannot be considered that the first respondent has given his findings which are subjective in nature." 7. In other words, his contention is that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercising the power of judicial review is rather limited. 7. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the Labour Court could not have acted as an Appellate Tribunal. What the Labour Court ought to have seen was whether there was some evidence in support of the charges. In the present case, the specific charge against the workman is that he assaulted the shift executive Thiru. N. Selvaraman during the night hours on 29.03.2012. What the Labour Court ought to have seen was whether there was some evidence in support of the charges. In the present case, the specific charge against the workman is that he assaulted the shift executive Thiru. N. Selvaraman during the night hours on 29.03.2012. Selvaraman was examined as a witness during the domestic enquiry. This aspect of the matter makes the order dated 16.09.2009 in W.P (MD). No. 1490 of 2002 distinguishable on facts. In paragraph No. 17, the learned Judge stated that the non examination of the person through whom the complaint was given is fatal to the case of the Management. In this case, complaint was given by Thiru. Selvaraman. He was examined as a witness. Though Thiru. Selvaraman declined to answer the questions that were posed to him with regard to the criminal case, he had given specific and direct answers implicating the respondent workman. This Court went through the deposition of Selvaraman. When a direct suggestion was put to Selvaraman that the respondent did not beat him, Selvaraman categorically answered that the respondent did beat him on the fateful day. This Court went through the copy of the complaint marked during the proceeding. The complaint is dated 30.03.2012. Selvaraman has specifically stated that a small group led to by one Vemburaj confronted him and that Vemburaj abused in filthy language and hit him on his left leg. As he tried to escape, the respondent and one Michael had pushed him down and also kicked and beat him. Selvaraman firmly stuck to this version in his deposition during the domestic enquiry also. In cross examination, this stand of Selvaraman was not shaken. Therefore, it is not as if there was some evidence in support of charges, but there was enough evidence to sustain the charge framed against the respondent. 8. The respondent did not deny that he was suspended from service on 30.03.2012. Unless the incident as narrated in the charge memo had taken place, there was no need to suspend the respondent on 30.03.2012. The date of occurrence and the date of suspension order are proximate to each other. Even before the Labour Court, the fairness of the domestic enquiry was not challenged. Therefore, the only question that the Labour Court should have posed to itself was whether there was some evidence in support of charges. But the Labour Court went beyond this statutory mandate. Even before the Labour Court, the fairness of the domestic enquiry was not challenged. Therefore, the only question that the Labour Court should have posed to itself was whether there was some evidence in support of charges. But the Labour Court went beyond this statutory mandate. It virtually acted as an Appellate Tribunal. Since the Labour Court had exceeded the jurisdiction conferred on it, this Court is justified in interfering with its award in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the award impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. 9. The matter of course cannot rest there. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the Management pointed out that the writ petitioner had been associating himself with a political party and he had been seriously disturbing the industrial peace prevailing in the Mill Campus. That the petitioner is associated with a political party is obvious from the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers. In fact it was the said political party that espoused the cause of the workman and was submitting demand letters to the Mill Management. When some of its staff members were threatened, the writ petitioner/the Management was constrained to file W.P (MD). No. 5370 of 2014 before this Court seeking police protection. In fact the name of the respondent/workman finds mention in the order passed by this Court on 26.03.2014 in the said writ proceedings. Therefore, there is sufficient material enclosed in the typed set of papers to indicate that the Mill Management had lost its confidence in the workman and that it would not be conducive to maintenance of industrial peace if the workman is reinstated. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) was paid to a similarly placed workman and that he had accepted the settlement and did not challenge the order of termination passed against him. 10. I am therefore of the view that in the interest of justice would be served by directing the Mill Management to pay a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) to the respondent workman toward full and final settlement of all his dues. 10. I am therefore of the view that in the interest of justice would be served by directing the Mill Management to pay a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) to the respondent workman toward full and final settlement of all his dues. The learned Senior counsel upon hearing this direction of this Court submitted that the Management would honour such a direction within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This would be over and above the gratuity dues which have already been deposited by the mill management in favour of the workman and the respondent/workman would be at liberty to withdraw the sum deposited by the Mill Management. 11. The learned senior counsel also submitted that in the earlier round of proceedings a sum of Rs. 3,44,872/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Two only) was deposited by the Mill Management to the credit of the ID in question. The respondent is at liberty to withdraw the said amount with accrued interest. 12. With this direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.