JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. CWP No.1646 of 2016 By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:­ “a) To modify the Award dated 9.11.2015 passed in reference No.75 of 2009 titled as Rakesh Kumar & others vs. Managing Director, M/s Su­kam Power System Limited by setting aside the findings on issue Nos.3, 4 and 5­A.” 2. Brief facts necessarily for the adjudication of present petition are that on a dispute raised by the workmen, the following Reference was made by the appropriate Government for the adjudication of learned Industrial Tribunal­cum­Labour Court, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter to be referred as ‘learned Tribunal’)” “1.“Whether the transfer of S/Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Rajeev Kumar, Sanjay Thakur, Sunil Kumar & Rakesh Kumar to different branches of M/s Su­kam Power Systems Limited at Gurgaon, Delhi, Jaipur and suspension of Shri Rajesh Kumar and thereafter dismissal of workmen S/Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Rajeev Kumar, Sanjay Thakur, Sunil Kumar & Rakesh Kumar from service on 30.04.2009 along­with suspended workman Shri Rajesh Kumar on the ground of major misconduct by the management, as alleged by the management of M/s Su­kam Power System Ltd., 64 71 DIC Industrial Area baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan HP, is legal and justified? If not, what relief and consequential service benefits above workmen are entitled to?” 2. “Whether strike resorted by the workmen of M/s Su­ kam Power System Ltd., 64, 71 DIC Industrial Area Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 28.7.2009 against the transfer/ suspension and further dismissal of S/Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Rajeev Kumar, Sanjay Thakur, Sunil Kumar, Rakesh Kumar & Rajesh Kumar is legal or illegal and its effect?” 3. Pursuant to the Reference being so made, the parties put forth their respective claims before the learned Tribunal and on the basis of their claims, the following issues were framed:­ “1. Whether the transfer of petitioners S/Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Rajiv Kumar, Sanjay Thakur, Sunil Kumar & Rakesh Kumar to different branches of respondent company was illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP 2. Whether petitioner Rajesh Kumar was put under suspension in an illegal and unjustified manner as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the petitioners S/Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Rajiv Kumar, Sanjay Thakur, Sunil Kumar, Rakesh Kumar along­with suspended workman Shri Rajesh Kumar were dismissed on the ground of major misconduct by the respondent in illegal and unjustified manner as alleged? OPP. 4. OPP 2. Whether petitioner Rajesh Kumar was put under suspension in an illegal and unjustified manner as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the petitioners S/Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Rajiv Kumar, Sanjay Thakur, Sunil Kumar, Rakesh Kumar along­with suspended workman Shri Rajesh Kumar were dismissed on the ground of major misconduct by the respondent in illegal and unjustified manner as alleged? OPP. 4. To what relief, the petitioners are entitled to if all or any of the above issues stand proved? OPP. 5. Whether the strike resorted by the workmen of respondent company against the transfer/ suspension and further dismissal of petitioners S/Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Rajiv Kumar, Sanjay Thakur, Sunil Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar was legal as alleged? If so, its effect? OPP. 5­A Whether the respondent is entitled to lead evidence on merits before this Court to prove the misconduct of the petitioners in case their dismissal is found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice? OPR. 6. Relief.” 4. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues were decided as under:­ “Issue no.1 No. Issue no.2 No. Issue no.3 Yes. Issue no.4 Entitled to lump sum compensation. Issue no.5 No. Issue no.5­A Yes. Relief. Reference partly allowed in favour of petitioners per operative part of award.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issues which have been decided in favour of the workmen and against the present petitioner by the learned Tribunal are erroneous being contrary to the pleadings as well as evidence on record. He submitted that learned Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the dismissal of the workmen was illegal or unjustified and further they were entitled for reinstatement, to compensate which, lump­sum compensation stands granted in their favour. Accordingly, he prayed that as the award passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law the present petition be allowed by modifying the award qua the issues which have been decided by the learned Tribunal against the present petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that there is neither any infirmity nor perversity in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that there is neither any infirmity nor perversity in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal. While drawing the attention of the Court to the findings which have been returned qua issues No.3 and 4 he submitted that all these findings are clearly borne out from the record of the case and therefore as there is neither any misreading on the part of the learned Tribunal nor the findings returned are contrary to the material on record, this petition is without any merit and the same be dismissed. Learned counsel further submitted that otherwise also in exercise of its power of judicial review this Court is not to act as an Appellate Court which in fact is intended by the petitioner. She has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. Hindalco Industries Limited, (2014) 11 Supreme Court Cases 85. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. A perusal of the award in issue demonstrates that while deciding issue No.2 in favour of the workmen, learned Tribunal after referring to respective contentions of the parties, took into consideration the relevant clauses of the certified standing orders, i.e. Clause 31.1 to 31.5 and thereafter held that as admittedly neither any Show Cause Notice nor any Charge Sheet was issued to the petitioner before terminating his services, the same was bad in law. Learned Tribunal also held that no explanation was called from the petitioner and no domestic inquiry was conducted to ascertain the charges and principles of natural justices were violated while passing the impugned order. 9. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the findings so returned by the learned Tribunal were perverse and not borne out from the record of the case. Therefore, as it stands fortified from the record that the termination of service of the workmen was without issuance of a Show Cause Notice and Charge Sheet as was the requirement of certified standing order which governed the service conditions of the workmen, this Court is of the considered view that the award passed by the learned Labour Court qua issue No.3 does not calls for any interference. 10. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. Hindalco Industries Limited, 2014 (11) Supreme Court Cases 85, after referring to its earlier judgments has held that the High Court can interfere with an Order of the Industrial Tribunal only on the procedural level and in cases, where the decision of the lower Court has been arrived at in gross violation of the legal principles. The High Court shall interfere with factual aspect placed before the Labour Courts only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made patent mistakes in admitting evidence illegally or made grave errors in law in coming to the conclusion of facts. The High Court granting contrary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India amount to exceeding its jurisdiction conferred upon it. 11. As far as issue No.4 is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation that has been awarded by the learned Labour Court in lieu of reinstatement cannot be said to be on the higher side. The workmen had served the petitioner­Company from the year 2005 onwards till their services were illegally terminated in the year 2009. 12. In this view of the matter, the compensation that has been granted at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/­ is fair and just. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at least the interest part that has been awarded by the learned Tribunal be waived of as the financial position of the companies are not all that good. The request so made appears to be genuine. 13. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of without otherwise interfering with the award passed the learned Tribunal except to the extent that the workmen shall not be entitled to the interest as was awarded to them by the learned Tribunal. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. CMP No.18155 of 2022 in CWP No.1646 of 2016 14. By way of this application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prayer has been made by applicants/ for release of amount. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this application is allowed and balance amount falling to the share of applicant, in terms of the judgment passed by this Court. alongwith up­to­date interest, is directed to be released in their favour. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this application is allowed and balance amount falling to the share of applicant, in terms of the judgment passed by this Court. alongwith up­to­date interest, is directed to be released in their favour. The amount be remitted directly into the bank account as per particulars annexed with the application. Application stands disposed of. 16. Since the main case stands disposed of, accordingly, present proceedings are ordered to be closed. Notice, if any, issued, stands discharged.