JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 18.2.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and award dated 29.9.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal was quashed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. In-fact, it was a case of no inquiry. Appellant had not made any admission/confession before the inquiry officer. Signatures of the appellant had been taken on blank papers. Even if the appellant had made any admission/confession, it was imperative on the respondent to have held an inquiry against the appellant before terminating his services. No interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made out, as the award of the labour Court could not be said to be perverse. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Jagdish Chandra Khadgawat, 1986 (2) SLR 424, wherein it Division Bench of this Court held as under:- “15. xxx …...It is not necessary to multiply the authorities, as the position appears to be well settled by the apex court of the country. In these circumstances, we find ourselves unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the so-called admitted facts or admissions made by the petitioner-respondent in his statement before the Investigating Officer Shri S.C. Chhabra, which has been produced as Ex. R. 4 no useful purpose could be served by holding enquiry or that no further enquiry was necessary. It may be stated that the allegation of forfeiture of trust and confidence of the Bank is in respect of the conduct attaching stigma on the petitioner-respondent. It was held in Chandulal's case that the enquiry is a condition precedent for inflicting penalty of termination of service. ” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has next placed reliance on the case of KVS Ram vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (2015) 12 SCC 39 , wherein the Supreme Court held as under:- “12. In Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd., it was held as under:-(SCC pp. 440-41, paras 15-16) "15. ” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has next placed reliance on the case of KVS Ram vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (2015) 12 SCC 39 , wherein the Supreme Court held as under:- “12. In Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd., it was held as under:-(SCC pp. 440-41, paras 15-16) "15. We find the judgment and award of the Labour Court well reasoned and based on facts and evidence on record. The High Court has erred in its exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to annul the findings of the Labour Court in its award as it is well-settled law that the High Court cannot exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution as an appellate court or reappreciate evidence and record its findings on the contentious points. Only if there is a serious error of law or the findings recorded suffer from error apparent on record, can the High Court quash the order of a lower court. The Labour Court in the present case has satisfactorily exercised its original jurisdiction and properly appreciated the facts and legal evidence on record and given a well-reasoned order and answered the points of dispute in favour of the appellant. The High Court had no reason to interfere with the same as the award of the Labour Court was based on sound and cogent reasoning, which has served the ends of justice. 16. It is relevant to mention that in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, with regard to the limitations of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227, it was held in para 49 that: (SCC p. 348) "49. (m) ... The power of interference under [Article 227] is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court." 4. It was also held that: (SCC p. 347, para 49) "49. (c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. It was also held that: (SCC p. 347, para 49) "49. (c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to it." 13. Emphasizing that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, the courts are to keep in view the goals set out in the Preamble and in Part IV of the Constitution while construing social welfare legislations, in Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corpn., this Court has held as under: (SCC p. 205, para 21) "21. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty-bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to subserve the common good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J. opined that: "10. ...The concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State. (State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines, AIR p. 1958 para 10)” Learned counsel for the appellant has next placed reliance on the case of Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Judge Labour Court & Anr., RLW 2001(2) Raj. 1221, wherein it was held as under:- “(2). (State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines, AIR p. 1958 para 10)” Learned counsel for the appellant has next placed reliance on the case of Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Judge Labour Court & Anr., RLW 2001(2) Raj. 1221, wherein it was held as under:- “(2). The whole matter appears to have cropped up as a reference was initiated framing an issue as to whether the Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank could dismiss the workman Shri Tara Singh by order dated 24.2.82 and whether the same was legal and valid and in case it was illegal, what relief or reliefs could be granted to him while dealing with this reference, the facts of the case of respondent-workman were related wherein it transpired that Shri Tara Singh was functioning as a Branch Manager of the Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank which is essentially a post equal to Lower Division Clerk and merely for the sake of the nomenclature it is termed as Bank Manager. One of the functions of the respondent-workman was to receive the deposits of money from the customers and it is alleged that in course of discharge of this duty, the respondent Shri Tara Singh although realised Rs. 900 in small denomination of 200 and 100 etc. he did not deposit the same in the Bank account and thus misappropriated it. It was further alleged that from 1978 to 1979 while he was functioning as Manager he sold off Bank's form of a denomination of Rs. 100 & paisa 95 but the same was not deposited in the Bank account and therefore, he was charged for misconduct. A domestic enquiry was thereafter initiated and in course of the enquiry, a confessional statement is alleged to have been made by the workman - Shri Tara Singh in the form of a letter wherein he was alleged to have accepted the charge. On the basis of this confessional statement the charges were held to have been proved in the enquiry. Thereafter a dispute was raised and hence the reference was initiated as stated hereinbefore for adjudication of the question in terms of the reference recorded hereinbefore. On the basis of this confessional statement the charges were held to have been proved in the enquiry. Thereafter a dispute was raised and hence the reference was initiated as stated hereinbefore for adjudication of the question in terms of the reference recorded hereinbefore. The Labour Court extensively examined the case and the counter case of the contesting parties - that is the Management and the workman, wherein a finding has been recorded to the effect that the petitioner management did not produce adequate evidence in support of the charge of misappropriation and merely relied upon the letter of confession alleged to have been written by Shri Tara Singh in front of one employee of the Bank-Shri Anil Garg. However, this portion of the evidence was also disbelieved by the Labour Court on the ground that even as per the evidence of Anil Garg, the confessional statement was of a period during which Anil Garg was not in service. What was sought to be emphasised by the Labour Court was that the confessional statement alleged to have been made by Shri Tara Singh could not have been relied upon for two reasons-firstly even if such a statement was recorded, the same was done under duress at the instance of the Management which went into luring the workman by stating that if you do not contest the charge, you will be awarded a lenient punishment any everything would be set right which prompted the respondent to make confessional statement which was tainted and could not have been relied upon having any evidentiary value. Besides this, the witness-Anil Garg who was produced by the Management to establish the veracity of the confessional statement, could hardly be treated as trustworthy, as Anil Garg himself admitted that he was not in service on the date when the confessional statement was recorded and hence he could not have been relied upon as a competent witness to prove that the confessional statement had been recorded without any pressure from the management. It was for these two reasons that the confessional statement was not relied upon by the Labour Court in support of the charge levelled by the management. (3). Mr. It was for these two reasons that the confessional statement was not relied upon by the Labour Court in support of the charge levelled by the management. (3). Mr. Agarwal on behalf of the petitioner however, stressed hard to establish that confessional statement was not the only evidence which had been relied upon by the management and in the domestic enquiry there were other evidence also, but he has totally missed that the management at no point of time could prove the charge and that appears to be the sole reason due to which a confessional statement was elicited by the management to sustain the charge. Even for the sake of argument, if it were to be accepted that the confessional statement was made voluntarily, the statement itself indicates that it was recorded since an assurance was given to the employee that he would be treated leniently from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that since the management was not in a position to produce unimpeachable evidence in support of the charge, it merely thought a way out to get over the situation by eliciting the statement from the workman. Therefore, if the Labour Court has not thought it safe to rely upon this document in order to hold the charge as proved, it is difficult to find fault with the reasoning of the Labour Court. Any other evidence before the Labour Court do not appear to have been in support of the charge and hence, I do not feel impressed with the emphasis of Mr. Agarwal to the effect that there were other evidence available as the entire basis on which the charge is said to has been proved, was the confessional statement which have been rejected totally as untrustworthy by the Labour Court. The finding of the Labour Court therefore, to the effect that the charge of misconduct could not be proved cannot be treated as a perverse finding. It is therefore difficult to interfere with the award of the Labour Court which thought it proper to pass an award of reinstatement of the respondent-workman with back-wages.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and has submitted that charge-sheet was duly issued to the appellant. Before the inquiry officer, appellant had admitted/confessed his guilt. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was liable to be upheld. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and has submitted that charge-sheet was duly issued to the appellant. Before the inquiry officer, appellant had admitted/confessed his guilt. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was liable to be upheld. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellant had earlier been punished on 36 occasions for carrying passengers without tickets. Appellant was working as a Conductor with the respondent and was issued a charge-sheet dated 28.7.2004. It was alleged that on 5.7.2004, appellant had taken fare from five passengers but had not issued tickets to them. Thereafter, appellant moved an application on 16.9.2004 that he wanted to admit/confess his guilt and thereafter, his statement was recorded on 16.9.2004, wherein he admitted/confessed his guilt. Although, it was argued by the appellant before the Labour Court also that his signatures had been taken on blank papers by the inquiry officer, but the said plea was never taken by the appellant in his complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since, the appellant had himself admitted/confessed his guilt, the learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the award passed by the learned Tribunal ordering his reinstatement was perverse. 6. The letter dated 16.9.2004 as well as statement of the appellant recorded on 16.9.2004 have been placed on record and a perusal of the same do not lead to the inference that the signatures of the appellant might have been taken on blank papers and thereafter, the application as well as the statement were written on said papers. 7. The judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellant fail to advance the case of the appellant, as they are based on different facts. Since, in the present case, the appellant had admitted/confessed his guilt, there was no need for the respondent to have conducted a detailed inquiry. An inquiry can be conducted where the parties are at a variance and the allegations levelled against an employee are denied by him. Since, in the present case, there was no dispute with regard to the allegations levelled against the appellant on account of his admission/confession, there was no occasion for the respondent to have held a detailed inquiry against the appellant with regard to allegations levelled against him. The appellant had earlier also been punished several occasions. 8. Since, in the present case, there was no dispute with regard to the allegations levelled against the appellant on account of his admission/confession, there was no occasion for the respondent to have held a detailed inquiry against the appellant with regard to allegations levelled against him. The appellant had earlier also been punished several occasions. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Single Judge had thus, rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent while setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court, as the award passed by the Labour Court was perverse.