JUDGMENT : This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the “order” dated 24.9.2011 passed by Shri Shiv Kumar Yadav, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in B.S. Case No. 16 of 1996, by which the prayer for setting aside the order of Discharge dated 03.05.1996 of the petitioner from the services of the Company and to reinstate him in service with full back wages under Section 26 (2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, l953 has been rejected, thereby confirming the order dated 03.05.1996 passed by the General Manager (F & A). 2. Heard Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 24.9.2011, passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been made a scape goat of the enquiry and has been victimized only for raising voices against the irregularities in the Management. It is further submitted that copy of enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner in violation of the principal of natural justice and he was only allowed to see the Enquiry Report. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this case, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (3) SCC 193 at Para 12 and in the case of State of Haryana Ors. V. Devi Dutt & Ors. reported in 2006 (13) SCC 32. 5. It is further submitted that even at the time of enquiry, it was found that the Gross Weight was measured twice on the date of occurrence, i.e. 07.06.1995 and on the second time it was found to be 89.921 MT, which is almost similar to the Gross weight measured for the first time, which was 90.075 MT, although it was reported that 16 pieces of iron rod were missing, weight of which was measured as 6.400 MT. It is submitted that even during the Domestic Enquiry the witnesses, not only on behalf of the Respondent-Management-Company, but also the petitioner, have stated that the petitioner was only given duty to make the weighment of the material in question and not to count the material and he has acted as per Chalan and has given his finding on the basis of weight measured in the weighment bridge. It is further submitted that even the representative of the Transporter Ajay was not examined by the Company during enquiry and no person from the loading point was enquired and examined by the Management-Company and as such the impugned order passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated with full back wages. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent-Company has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that domestic enquiry was held as per norms and it was a fair enquiry and full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case. It is submitted that the petitioner has caused huge loss to the Respondent Management-Company by colluding with the Transporter M/s M. Prakash & Brothers and it was found on 07.6.1995 that 16 pieces, weighing around 6.400 MT were missing. It is submitted that chargesheet was issued against the petitioner on 22.8.1995 and thereafter, regular enquiry was conducted against him and it was found during enquiry that 16 pieces of Iron rod were missing weighing around 6.400 MT. It is submitted that the copy of the enquiry report was shown to the petitioner and even the second show-cause Notice was issued to the petitioner and for which he has filed his reply on 18.4.1996 against the said enquiry report and the proposed punishment, which has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition and hence, the Department has taken proper decision by discharging the petitioner from the services of Company. It is submitted that enquiry report is furnished to the petitioner and he had been allowed to go through the enquiry report. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Company, in support of his contention, has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Amrit Vanaspati Co. It is submitted that enquiry report is furnished to the petitioner and he had been allowed to go through the enquiry report. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Company, in support of his contention, has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. Versus Khem Chand and Another reported in (2006) 6 SCC 325 at Paragraph 8 (iii) and submitted that the writ court cannot look into the punishment imposed as per the enquiry report as the scope of judicial review is limited. It is submitted that in view of the above this writ petition may be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent has further emphasized that all the witnesses during enquiry has supported the case of the Management that the petitioner has caused loss of 16 pieces of Iron Rod weighing around 6.400 MT and hence, no illegality has been committed by the Enquiry Officer by submitting enquiry report against the petitioner and further no illegality has also been committed by the Disciplinary Authority by passing the order of Discharge against the petitioner from the services, hence this writ petition may be dismissed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and from perusal of the record of this case, it transpires that the petitioner was appointed in May, 1978, in the Accounts Department on the post of Assistant and lastly he was working as Weighment/Freight In-Charge, CFO & WBs. Accounts Division. 10. It transpires that on 22.8.1995 (i.e. Annexure-1), chargesheet was submitted upon the petitioner to the effect that 173 pieces of 125 mm 45-C B Rounds was sent to Jamshedpur stockyard, but only 157 pieces were received, whereas the gross weight recorded at B.R.M Weigh-Bridge and at Jamshedpur Stockyard Weigh-bridge are approximately the same. 11. It is also pointed out that the petitioner connived with the Transporter and maneuvered the placement of Truck/Trailer while recording the gross weight to show it less than the actual loading of 16 pieces, weighing approximately 6.400 MT excess material for the benefit of the Transporter and for his personal gain. 12. The petitioner vide letter dated 25.08.1995 replied to the said charges and refuted the charges of the Management and stated that it was not his duty to count the pieces and bundles of any consignment and he was posted for weighing the materials only. 13. 12. The petitioner vide letter dated 25.08.1995 replied to the said charges and refuted the charges of the Management and stated that it was not his duty to count the pieces and bundles of any consignment and he was posted for weighing the materials only. 13. The petitioner also enclosed the weighment slip dated 07.6.1995 as Annexure-3 Series. 14. It further transpires that thereafter last weighment of the said material was done on 14.6.1995 and 157 pieces having net weight of 60.760 MT were found. 15. Thereafter, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and one S.K. Sinha, Manager (Personnel) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry and after examining the witnesses and going through the records held that the petitioner is found guilty for the charges levelled against him and vide letter of Explanation No. 0E/343/96 dated 13.4.1996 the petitioner was asked to file his comments on the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was directed to file reply to the proposed punishment of ‘discharge’ to which the petitioner replied vide Letter dated 18.04.1996 that it has not been proved beyond doubt that he was liable for punishment and therefore, to punish him in such a doubtful case would not be justified and requested the Management to exonerate him from the charges levelled against him and he denied the finding of the enquiry report, however, vide letter dated 03.5.1996 issued by the General Manager (F & A) the petitioner was discharged from the services of the Company. 16. At this stage, it is relevant to mention here that even the witness, i.e. O.P.W.1, namely Shivaji Sengupta stated in Paragraph 7 to 11 of his cross-examination that it was not the duty of the petitioner to count the material in question, rather his duty was to weigh of the material on the weighment Bridge and to get the computerized weight slip. 17. It transpires that O.P.W 4, namely Anjan Dasgupta admitted during his cross-examination at Paragraph 15 that the petitioner was assigned to get the vehicle weighed and to get the computerized weight slip and not to count the pieces. 18. 17. It transpires that O.P.W 4, namely Anjan Dasgupta admitted during his cross-examination at Paragraph 15 that the petitioner was assigned to get the vehicle weighed and to get the computerized weight slip and not to count the pieces. 18. Therefore, it is evident that even the witnesses of the Management-Company examined as O.P.W. 1 and O.P.W. 4, namely Shivaji Sengupta and Anjan Dasgupta stated that the petitioner was assigned the job of getting the computerized weight slip only and not to count the pieces of the consignment. 19. It further transpires that even both the witnesses have stated that there was no difference of weight in the material so counted, which led to framing of charges against the petitioner. 20. It transpires that thereafter the petitioner has filed B.S. Case No. 16 of 1996 before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur for setting aside the Discharge order and further for his reinstatement in the services, which was dismissed by the learned Court below on the ground that the Enquiry Officer has found the appellant guilty for conniving with the Transporter and maneuvering the placement of the vehicle with a view to benefit the Transporter and also for his personal gain and the Act of the petitioner amounts to theft and dishonesty in connection with the business and had caused loss to the company. 21. From perusal of the impugned order dated 24.09.2011, it is evident that during pendency of the B.S. Case No. 16 of 1996, neither the copy of the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice nor his case was properly appreciated by the Presiding Officer of the learned Court below. It is well settled that supply of enquiry report is mandatory and non-supply of the same also amounts to violation of the principle of natural justice. 22. So far as judgment reported in the case of Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. Versus Khem Chand and Another reported in (2006) 6 SCC 325 is concerned, the same is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case. 22. So far as judgment reported in the case of Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. Versus Khem Chand and Another reported in (2006) 6 SCC 325 is concerned, the same is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case. Even said judgment as heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent is not applicable because in the above case, this Court finds that Management is guilty of victimizing the petitioner and has not taken into consideration that the weight of the material which was sent as per weighment slip from the work place of the petitioner was found almost the same and the person at the loading point has not been proceeded with any Departmental Enquiry and the petitioner appears to have been made a scape goat in this case. Even non-supply of enquiry report, which has resulted into great prejudice to the petitioner, has not been discussed in this case and hence, the above judgment is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 23. It has been held in the case of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. Viswanathan, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 193 at Page 12 as follows: “Para No. 12:- Normally, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, is the final court of facts in these types of disputes, but if a finding of fact is perverse or if the same is not based on legal evidence the High Court exercising a power either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution can go into the question of fact decided by the Labour Court or the Tribunal. But before going into such an exercise it is necessary that the writ court must record reasons why it intends reconsidering a finding of fact. In the absence of any such defect in the order of the Labour Court the writ court will not enter into the realm of factual disputes and finding given thereon. A consideration of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge shows that nowhere has he come to the conclusion that the finding of the Labour Court was either perverse or based on no evidence or based on evidence which is not legally acceptable. A consideration of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge shows that nowhere has he come to the conclusion that the finding of the Labour Court was either perverse or based on no evidence or based on evidence which is not legally acceptable. Learned Single Judge proceeded as if he was sitting in a court of appeal on facts and item after item of evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry as well as before the Labour Court was reconsidered and findings given by the Labour Court were reversed. We find no justification for such an approach by the learned Single Judge which only amounts to substitution of his subjective satisfaction in the place of such satisfaction of the Labour Court.” 24. It has been held in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. V. Devi Dutt & Ors. reported in 2006 (13) SCC 32 in Paragraph 8 is as follows: “Para 8:- “The High Court ordinarily should not have interfered with the said finding of fact. We, although, do not mean to suggest that the findings of fact cannot be interfered with by the superior courts in exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the same should be done upon application of the well-known legal principles such as: (1) when it is perverse; when wrong legal principles have been applied; (3) when wrong questions were posed; (4) when relevant facts have not been taken into consideration; or (5) the findings have been arrived at on the basis of the irrelevant facts or on extraneous consideration” 25. In both the above cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court can interfere with the finding recorded the during Domestic Enquiry as well as by the Labour Court if the same were found perverse or based on no evidence. 26. In the present case this Court finds that the finding of the Enquiry Officer and the finding of the learned Labour Court is perverse and vitiated as neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Labour Court has discussed the evidence of the witnesses to the effect that the weight of the consignment was found almost same during earlier and later weighment and the petitioner was only entrusted with the work to weigh the material in question and not to count it. 27. 27. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India mentioned above, the order dated 24.9.2011 passed by Shri Shiv Kumar Yadav, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur is set aside and the Respondent-Management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into services with 50% back wages within 30 days from the date of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. 28. Thus, this writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction.