JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned Award in I.D.No.527/2002 dated 10.11.2003 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with backwages, and all other attendant benefits and thus render justice.) 1. The Award dated 10.11.2003 passed in I.D.No.527 of 2002 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner workman states that he was employed in the 2nd respondent Management for about 21 years. He was an Office bearer of the Trade Union and as a person interested in uplifting the welfare of the poor workers and to avert unfair labour practices and exploitation. On account of certain allegations, two charges were levelled against the writ petitioner. The 1st charge is that the petitioner came to the muster with drunken mood and shouted at the Assistant Manager on 31.03.1997 for belated disbursement of salary and the 2nd charge is that he made a complaint against the improper maintenance of Washroom. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 07.06.1997 and the writ petitioner gave a reply on 13.06.1997. Not satisfied with the reply, the 2nd respondent Management ordered for domestic enquiry. Based on the findings of the Enquiry officer, a Second Show Cause Notice was issued and on receipt of the explanations, the writ petitioner was terminated from service. The writ petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.527 of 2002 and the said dispute was dismissed by the Labour Court. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner filed additional typed set of papers, stating that the signature of the writ petitioner is varying from one document to another and therefore, there was a fraud on the part of the Management. The signature of the writ petitioner was fabricated and based on such enquiry, the major penalty of termination was imposed. Thus, the Award is liable to be scrapped. 4. The signature of the writ petitioner was fabricated and based on such enquiry, the major penalty of termination was imposed. Thus, the Award is liable to be scrapped. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that an improper and enquiry was conducted and the statement given by the petitioner was wrongly interpreted as an admission of the charges and based on such an erroneous admission of the charges, he was terminated from service. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged this Court that it is a fit case to remand the matter back for re-enquiry and further, said that the writ petitioner is ready and willing to participate in the fresh enquiry, if any ordered by this Court. It is stated that the Labour Court also has not considered these aspects. The Labour Court proceeded on the footing that the writ petitioner had admitted the charges before the Enquiry officer and therefore, the punishment imposed is in consonance with the principles and accordingly, rejected the dispute raised by the writ petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Management disputed the contentions by stating that the grounds now orally raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were not raised at any point of time either before the Enquiry officer or before the Labour Court. It is contended that even in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, no such allegations are raised. In the absence of raising such an allegation at the earliest point of time as it relates to the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is estopped from raising such grounds orally before this Court, at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. The writ petitioner ought to have raised such discrepancies in the signature at the earliest point of time before the Enquiry officer. Contrarily, the writ petitioner had admitted the guilt by giving a clear statement, which was recorded by the Enquiry officer. When the Labour Court also recorded such findings of the Enquiry officer, the writ petitioner had not objected the same. 34 Documents were marked on the side of the respondent Management by consent and there was no objection on the part of the writ petitioner before the Labour Court. The Labour Court also proceeded based on the documents and even the petitioner failed to adduce any oral evidences before the Labour Court. 34 Documents were marked on the side of the respondent Management by consent and there was no objection on the part of the writ petitioner before the Labour Court. The Labour Court also proceeded based on the documents and even the petitioner failed to adduce any oral evidences before the Labour Court. When the writ petitioner had accepted all the procedures and admitted the guilt, there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the Award impugned in the present writ petition. 6. To substantiate the said contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents solicited the attention of this Court in respect of the Minutes made by the Enquiry officer, which states as follows: “TAMIL” 7. Similarly, in respect of the other charge also, the Minutes of the Enquiry officer reads as follows: “TAMIL” 8. Apart from this, the findings of the Labour Court in the Award also, it is stated that the writ petitioner had admitted the charges before the Enquiry officer. Even before the Labour Court, the writ petitioner has not raised any discrepancies regarding his signature during the enquiry proceedings or regarding the admission of the charges before the Enquiry officer. No such ground has been raised before the Enquiry officer as well as before the Labour Court. Even in the present writ petition, such grounds are not raised in the affidavit. Contrarily, when the matter is taken up for final hearing, an oral submission is made that there is a discrepancy in the signature. Now after a lapse of 22 years from the date of enquiry, this Court cannot remit the matter back for re-enquiry as the witnesses may not be available for examination as 22 years had lapsed. There is no meaningful purpose would be served in the event of remanding the matter back for fresh enquiry. This apart, the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised for the purpose of conducting an enquiry and only on certain exceptional circumstances, such an enquiry can be conducted and in all other circumstances, documents produced before the Labour Court and the findings of the Labour Court regarding the facts are to be considered in a writ petition. The jurisdiction of the High Court is to ascertain the procedures followed for the purpose of arriving a decision and not the decision itself. 9. The jurisdiction of the High Court is to ascertain the procedures followed for the purpose of arriving a decision and not the decision itself. 9. This being the principles settled by the Constitutional Courts across the Country, the High Court cannot go into the decision itself. The High Court is empowered to go into the procedures through which such a decision is arrived and the procedures followed by the competent authorities and to ascertain whether such procedures adopted or in compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice or not? This being the principles to be followed, now at this length of time, this Court cannot order for a fresh enquiry and this Court has to go by the findings of the Enquiry officer as well as the findings of the Labour Court and the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition on hand. 10. The Labour Court also categorically found that the enquiry was conducted in compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice and even before the Enquiry officer, the writ petitioner workman admitted the charges and therefore, the Enquiry officer also submitted his report, stating that the charges against the writ petitioner are proved. Based on the proved charges, the penalty was imposed by the Management. The Labour Court finally held that such a indiscipline or misconduct cannot be dealt with leniently and arrived a conclusion that the punishment is appropriate and there is no infirmity. 11. It is relevant to remind the fundamental duties of a citizen enunciated under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India. Sub Clause (i) to Article 51-A enumerates that “to safeguard public property and to abjure violence”. Sub Clause (j) stipulates that “to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement”. 12. Emphasizing the fundamental duties of the citizen under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the strong opinion that rights and duties are inseparable concepts and the person, who is claiming right, must keep in mind that he has got corresponding duties towards the fellow citizen and to our great Nation at large. 12. Emphasizing the fundamental duties of the citizen under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the strong opinion that rights and duties are inseparable concepts and the person, who is claiming right, must keep in mind that he has got corresponding duties towards the fellow citizen and to our great Nation at large. Rights and duties are the relative terms and therefore, in the current day situation, while dealing with the rights of the individuals, his duties are also to be considered by the Constitutional Courts in order to adopt a pragmatic and balancing approach. It is not as if while upholding a rights of a citizen, Court can neglect his duties. Only if a citizen respects his duties as law requires, then alone he can claim his right under the law and it is not as if he can violate his duties and responsibilities and claim rights in isolation. Such a concept, if at all in the mind of a person, the same can never be encouraged by the Constitutional Courts. 13. Keeping this view, this Court is of an opinion that certain allegations, manhandling or physically attacking or assaulting the co-employees or the higher officials can never be tolerated and such offences are already classified as punishable offence under the Indian Penal Code. This apart, respecting the fellow citizen or colleagues in the work place is of paramount importance. Only through maintaining the discipline and decorum, the industrial activities can be developed, so also, the developmental activities across the country can be taken forward. Thus, discipline and decorum in industrial places are of paramount importance. It is an organizational discipline, which would make the industry to grow further and to develop the prospectus of our great Nation as well as the people at large. Thus, compromising the discipline will lead to destruction within the industry/public institutions. Any indisciplined industry or organization can never see the light of growth. Most of the industries/public institutions had collapsed on account of indiscipline, mal administration or corruption. Thus, discipline, decorum, honesty and integrity are the vital characters to be maintained in the industry/public institutions, factories and trade activities, so as to take our Nation forward on par with the global standards. Our great Nation is a fast growing Country in the world. Most of the industries/public institutions had collapsed on account of indiscipline, mal administration or corruption. Thus, discipline, decorum, honesty and integrity are the vital characters to be maintained in the industry/public institutions, factories and trade activities, so as to take our Nation forward on par with the global standards. Our great Nation is a fast growing Country in the world. Under these circumstances, Courts are also duty bound to ensure that such discipline, decorum, honesty and integrity are being maintained at all institutional levels and all such institutional respects are also protected. 14. This being the concept to be borne in mind, this Court is of an opinion that any indiscipline, if noticed and disciplinary actions are initiated against the employees, Courts must be keen in analyzing the factors and arrive a conclusion that such indiscipline activities are brought down and dealt in accordance with law without showing any leniency or misplaced sympathy. Thus in disciplinary matters, misplaced sympathy by the Courts also would lead to destruction of industries/public institutions. The personal likes and dislikes of certain elements or character should not have any impact in deciding such cases of disciplinary proceedings. It is not as if we are compromising the principles, we are compromising the National developments and therefore, there cannot be any such misplaced sympathy in the matter of discipline and decorum in industries and in public institutions. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances as well as the findings of the Labour Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or infirmity in respect of the Award. 16. Accordingly, the Award dated 10.11.2003 passed in I.D.No..527 of 2002 is confirmed and the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.