JUDGMENT : SANJAY PRASAD, J. This present Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing/setting aside the Award dated 10.04.2015 passed by Sri Kishori Ram, learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad, in connection with Reference No. 71 of 2007, whereby the Reference has been decided in favour of the workman-Dr. Vinod Prasad by holding that the workman is entitled to all his five increments with all his financial benefits for the relevant period of his service tenure and further the Management has been directed to implement the Award within a month from the date of its receipt following its publication by Government of India in the Gazette of India. 2. Heard Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bijay Kr. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Award dated 10.04.2015 passed by Sri Kishori Ram, learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad, in connection with Reference No. 71 of 2007 is illegal, arbitrary and fit to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal had passed the impugned Award without properly appreciating the case of the petitioner-Bank. It is submitted that the workman Dr. Vinod Prasad (i.e. Respondent no. 2), vide letter dated 19.07.2013 before the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Camp Court, Patna had accepted the domestic enquiry as fair and proper and held in accordance with the principles of natural justice but the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned Award has overlooked the evidences adduced by the petitioner-Bank. 4. It is submitted that three minor punishments were imposed upon the respondent-workman as warning for Charges No. 1, 2 and 3. However, for Charges No. 4, 5 and 6, the punishment of lower stage in scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect, to lower stage in scale of pay by one stage with cumulative effect, to lower stage in scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect respectively have been imposed, as the same were necessary to maintain the discipline at peaceful working condition in the Bank. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Report was served upon the petitioner and full opportunity was given to him to defend his case and to adduce his evidence and even second show cause notice was also issued to him and as such, the Labour Court committed grave error while passing the reference in favor of the workman. It is submitted that once the workman has himself admitted by filing the petition on 19.07.2013 that the Domestic Enquiry/Departmental Enquiry was fair and proper then the Tribunal should not have interfered with the finding of fact and cannot act as the Appellate Authority over the finding of the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments which are as follows:- (i) In the case of Oshiar Prasad and Others versus Employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand reported in 2015 (4) SCC 71 , (ii) In the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur versus Om Prakash Sharma reported in 2006 (5) SCC 123 , (iii) In the case of General Manager (Operations) State Bank of India and Another versus R. Periyasamy reported in 2015 (3) SCC 101 and (iv) In the case of Union of India and Others versus Ex. Constable Ram Karan reported in 2022 (1) SCC 373 6. It is submitted that in view of the above, the impugned Award dated 10.04.2015 passed by Sri Kishori Ram, learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad, in connection with Reference No. 71 of 2007 may be set aside and hence, this Writ Petition may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the impugned Award passed by the learned CGIT, Dhanbad is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the case of both the sides and has rightly passed the reference in favour of the respondent-workmen by holding that quantum of punishment imposed by the Management Bank of Baroda by lowering down five (05) increments of workman in lack of proof, is illegal and has rightly held that the workman is entitled to all of his five (05) increments with all his financial benefits for the relevant period of his service tenure. It is submitted that Domestic Enquiry was not fair and proper and sufficient opportunities were not given to the Respondent-Workman and it was also noticed by the learned Tribunal in the Award. It is submitted that the Respondent was the Deputy General Secretary of Bihar State Bank of Baroda Employees Association and District General Secretary of All India Bank Employees Association and had not assaulted the Branch Manager and had not caught hold of his neck. It is submitted that the respondent workman had tried to intervene in order to solve the problem and tried to pacify the Branch Manager namely Birendra Prasad and one Assistant Ajay K Sah, however, he has been falsely implicated by the Branch Manager namely Birendra Prasad. It is submitted that after the occurrence, the respondent workman was transferred from Muzzafarpur Branch to remote Branch namely Righa Branch by way of punishment. Although, he had tried to solve the issue from his own level. It is submitted that during Domestic Enquiry, the respondent workman was not allowed to produce the witnesses and he was also not allowed to prove his documents by the Enquiry Officer in support of his claim. Even the Enquiry Officer had not allowed him to bring his evidence in support of his case. The respondent workman in support of his contention has relied upon the letter as contained in Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 16.10.2023 which was addressed to the Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Patna, Bihar. It is submitted that the said letter was signed by the several staff members namely, the workman and also Ajay K. Sah, Hari Narain Ram and Janak Ram and also by the various customers, however, the respondent workman was not allowed to bring his witnesses during the Domestic Enquiry and as such, the Domestic Enquiry remained a mere formality. It is further submitted that the respondent workman, due to delay in disposal of reference case, has himself given the writing under the pressure, that the Domestic Enquiry was fair and proper vide application dated 19.07.2013, as the reference case was instituted in the year 2007 and more than six (06) years had passed. Thereafter, the Award was finally passed on 10.04.2015 by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad. Thereafter, the Award was finally passed on 10.04.2015 by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Report was not supplied to the respondent workman, although, proposed punishment was mentioned in the second show cause notice dated 21.03.2006 which was sent by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner. Even after the demand of Enquiry Report the same has not been served upon him and thus, there is violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the respondent workman was falsely implicated by Shri Birendra Prasad, then Branch Manager by making out a plan in connivance with other senior officials of the Banks and the workman was harassed several times. It is submitted that even during departmental enquiry, paper related to the incident occurred at Mohammad Branch were added with the present charges only to held him guilty. It is submitted that even the Enquiry Officer did not allow the respondent workman to cross-examine the witnesses of the Management. It is submitted that the Tribunal has correctly held that the charges against the Respondent Workman were vague and ambiguous and during the entire departmental proceeding, none of the six (06) charges were proved against the respondent workman. Thus, the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal may be held valid and hence, this Writ Petition may be dismissed. 8. Perused the records of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 9. It appears that on 24.01.2005 during Banking business hours of the Branch at 10 A.M., one Mr. H. N Ram, the Head Cashier, Category-C of Branch was on sanctioned leave and he was to come back from leave on 24.01.2005. There were number of customers at the Branch and without cash of the key, Hari Narain Ram, Head Cashier, was managing cash from the receipt of the customers. Although, Mr. Ajay K. Sah, who was holding cash of the key during leave of Head Cashier, came to Branch at around 11:00 A.M. Since, he was late and hence, he was marked ‘Absent’ in the Attendance Register and was told by the Branch Head that he would not be allowed to resume duty which resulted in heated argument between Branch Head and Mr. Ajay K. Sah. 10. Ajay K. Sah. 10. Thereafter, it is said that at around 11:20 A.M., as per habit, workman- Vinod Prasad reached at the Branch at late hours and he intervened with an intention that in inspite of late coming, staff members should be allowed to resume duty. The workman was also informed that he had also marked ‘absent’ for being late and he will not be allowed to join duty. Thereafter, the workman shouted and abused him using derogatory and filthy languages and threatened him of dire consequences and stated that customers were watching this incident in the Branch premises when Mr. Birendra Prasad tried to ring up Regional Officer to report the incident, then, the workman-petitioner snatched the telephone and threw away on the table of the Branch Manager. He is also said to have assaulted the Branch Manager, holding his neck with his both hands, continuously with filthy and abusive languages which was also seen and heard by the landlord of the Branch Premises from the window. Thereafter, the landlord entered into the Bank and rescued the Branch Manager Mr. Birendra Prasad. In the meantime, the customer present in the Branch held the workman and tried to cool him. Thereafter, Mr. Birendra Prasad rang up Sr. Manager (HRM), Regional Office and informed him about the offensive and abusive behavior of the respondent workman. 11. It is further case of the petitioner management-Bank that the respondent workman had taken leave several times in the year 2003 and 2004 i.e. on 23-24 occasions but he had not submitted a single application for leave, which is in total disregard and in contravention of accepted norms laid down. The respondent workman has not even acknowledge the advisory Letter No. 3848 dated 25.11.2004 which was issued to him. Even after leaving from Mohammadpur Branch, (i.e. Branch of incident) on 01.02.2005, the respondent workman did not report at Righa Branch as per instructions contained in letter dated 01.02.2005. The workman finally, after long absence, reported his duty at Righa Branch on 28.03.2005. For his absence from 02.02.2005 to 27.03.2005, barring days of election training/duty, neither any intimation was sent to Righa Branch nor he obtained sanction for the same. However, he requested for leave from 25.02.2005 to 05.03.2005 for attending conference and union work and the said leave application was sent after the period of leave was over and also without mentioning the contact address. However, he requested for leave from 25.02.2005 to 05.03.2005 for attending conference and union work and the said leave application was sent after the period of leave was over and also without mentioning the contact address. 12. It appears that the charges were framed against the respondent workman vide letter dated 27.04.2005 which were as follows:- (i) He was irregular and unpunctual in attendance, (ii) Absented frequently without leave application and sufficient ground, (iii) Failed to show proper consideration and courtesy towards Branch Manger, (iv) Behaved in riotous violent, indecent and disorderly manner on premises of Bank, (v) Willfully disobeyed lawful and reasonable order of the superior and (vi) His acts were prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the bank. 13. Thereafter, the Respondent workman had submitted his reply on 31.05.2005 , although, a copy of explanation has not been enclosed. Thereafter, Enquiry Report was submitted on 28.02.2006 which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition and which is marked as Exhibit-M-5. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued on 21.03.2006 the petitioner filed explanation. However, the copy of explanation has not been enclosed with this writ petition. 14. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 31.03.2006 has passed the punishment order which is enclosed as Annexure-2 of this writ petition. Thereafter, the respondent had preferred the appeal before the Appellate Authority under Regulation 14 of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for workman dated 10.04.2002. However, the Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal on 30.08.2006 enclosed as Annexure-3 of this writ petition. 15. Thereafter, the General Secretary of Bihar State Bank of Baroda Employees Association made a demand notice vide letter dated 17.10.2006 praying for exoneration of punishment awarded upon the respondent workman and the said letter dated 17.10.2006 is enclosed as Annexure-4. 16. Then, industrial dispute was raised was raised by the Association of Workman through its Secretary vide letter dated 06.02.2007 (i.e. Annexure-5). 17. The petitioner then filed reply to the letter dated 06.02.2007 denying the averments made in the said letter and reply filed by the petitioner Bank dated 30.04.2007 is enclosed as Annexure-6. 18. Thereafter, vide letter dated 11.12.2007, the dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication leading to institution of Reference Case No.71 of 2007. 19. 18. Thereafter, vide letter dated 11.12.2007, the dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication leading to institution of Reference Case No.71 of 2007. 19. Schedule of reference of the industrial dispute reads as follows:- “Whether the quantum of punishment imposed by the Management of Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Patna in lowering down 5 increments in respect of Dr. Vinod Prasad, Special Assistant in the decision making process in appropriate and justified? If not, what relief Dr. Prasad is entitled to?’’ 20. It transpires that though, the Reference Case No. 71 of 2007 was instituted in the year 2007 itself, however, the matter remained pending before the learned Tribunal and in the meantime, the respondent workman had filed petition on 19.07.2013 by accepting that the Domestic Enquiry was fair and proper and accordingly, the learned Tribunal i.e. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad vide order dated 24.01.2014 held that Domestic Enquiry is fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 21. Thereafter, the photocopy of the relevant documents of both the sides were marked on ‘Admission’ with the consent of both the sides. 22. It transpires that no witness was examined on behalf of the either side. 23. However, with the consent of both the sides, Exhibit: W-1 to W-4 were marked on behalf of the respondent workman whereas Exhibit: M-1 to M-6 (on formal proof waived) were marked on behalf of the Management-Bank i.e. the petitioner Bank. 24. Thereafter, both the sides had filed their respective argument before the learned Tribunal. 25. It transpires that the learned Tribunal had mentioned all the six (06) charges leveled against the workman-Respondent No.2. 26. It transpires from the impugned Award dated 10.04.2015 that the Chief Manager of S.K. Puri Branch, Patna was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The workman had submitted his explanation on 31.05.2005 to the Assistant General Manager and the Disciplinary Authority, Bihar Region, Bank of Baroda. 27. It reveals that the workman with his authorized representative colleague of Patna Main Branch had participated in the enquiry and he was given full of opportunity for his defence in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The workman had submitted his explanation on 31.05.2005 to the Assistant General Manager and the Disciplinary Authority, Bihar Region, Bank of Baroda. 27. It reveals that the workman with his authorized representative colleague of Patna Main Branch had participated in the enquiry and he was given full of opportunity for his defence in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer M. S Dahiya had submitted his Enquiry Report dated 28.02.2006 along with their relevant document to the Disciplinary Authority, having found all the charges proved. A copy of Enquiry Report was sent to the workman and the workman submitted his comment dated 16.03.2006 on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 28. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority had issued second show cause notice dated 21.03.2006 to the workman for proposed punishment of lowering down five (05) stages in his pay scale with cumulative effect. 29. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority had awarded punishment of warning for the first three charges respectively and punishment lowering down two stages for 4 th and 6 th charges and one stage in his pay scale of 5 th charge respectively. 30. At this stage, it is relevant to mention here that it is well settled that this High Court cannot interfere in the Award, unless the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is perverse and arbitrary. 31. In view of the above, this Court has to decide as to whether the Award under challenge is perverse or not? However, this Court has decided as to whether this is a case of no oral evidence against the respondent workman. 32. It is evident that no witness was examined before the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad rather certain documents were marked on the admission on behalf of both the sides which were marked before the Enquiry Officer during the Domestic Enquiry. The documents filed on behalf of the workman were marked as W-1 to W-4 which are as follows:- (i) Exhibit-W-1 is the letter sent by the workman along with staff namely Ajay K. Sah, Narain Ram and Janak Ram with the signature of five (05) customers on 03.02.2005 to the Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Srikrishnapur Branch, Patna. (ii) Exhibit-W-2 is the letter dated 22.02.2005 sent by Mr. (ii) Exhibit-W-2 is the letter dated 22.02.2005 sent by Mr. Remis Turu, Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Patna to the General Secretary, Bihar, State Bank of Baroda Employees Association C/o Bank of Baroda, Patna. (iii) Exhibit-W-3 is the letter dated 31.05.2005 sent by the workman to Sri Prabhat Agarwal, Assistant General Manager and Disciplinary Authority. (iv) Exhibit-W-4 series are the order sheet of Enquiry Officer dated 16.06.2005, 25.07.2005 in departmental enquiry and order sheet dated 24.11.2005, the respondent workman showing his participation in the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer which also include the evidence sheet regarding evidence of Mr. Laxman Pd. Singh (landlord and customer) of Mohammadpur Branch, Bank of Baroda, Statement of Dineshwar Pd. Singh (MW2), statement of Nil Mani Saurabh as MW-3, statement of Mr. Birendra Prasad as MW-4 i.e. Branch Manager/Complainant and evidence of S.K Choudhary (Senior Manager Personnel), H.R.M, , R.O. Patna as M.W-5 and evidence sheet of witness Arun Kumar (Personnel Officer), H.R.M, R.O, Patna. These also include the evidence sheet of the Workman-Respondent No.2 Dr. Vinod Prasad as D.W-1 i.e. the Respondent Workman. 33. It also appears that even the Workman-Respondent No.2 had examined six (06) witnesses as D.W-1 to D.W-6. He had produced the Workman Ajay K. Sah. D.W-6 who stated that there was an altercation between Birendra Prasad i.e. the Branch Manager and Ajay K. Sah and the Manager had abused the Workman. 34. D.W-5 had admitted that Cash Section of the Bank was opened at 11:00 A.M instead of 10:00 A.M. 35. He also admitted that Ajay K. Sah i.e. D.W-6 and Dr. Vinod Prasad i.e. Respondent-Workman sometime used to arrive late in the Bank and there was an altercation between the Bank Manager and Ajay Kr. Sah. 36. Although, the evidence of D.W-2, D.W-3, D.W-4 and D.W-6 are in support of the Workman. However, their evidence are not worth to be considered as they are under the influence of the Workman and if such evidence are being considered then, it will lead to chaos in the affairs of the Bank system. 37. So far as the documents of Management are concerned, Exhibit M-1 to Exhibit M-6 were marked (on formal proof waived). (i) Exhibit-M-1 is the charge sheet dated 27.04.2005, (ii) Exhibit-M-2 is the letter regarding bringing outside influence for transfer filed by the respondent workman issued by Assistant General Manager to the respondent workman, Dr. 37. So far as the documents of Management are concerned, Exhibit M-1 to Exhibit M-6 were marked (on formal proof waived). (i) Exhibit-M-1 is the charge sheet dated 27.04.2005, (ii) Exhibit-M-2 is the letter regarding bringing outside influence for transfer filed by the respondent workman issued by Assistant General Manager to the respondent workman, Dr. Vinod Prasad which reveals that the workman had approached Mr. D.P Yadav, former Union Minister, Government of India to influence the authority of the Bank to consider his request transfer to Muzzafarpur Centre and which amounts to violating the provision of Bipartite Settlement and the workman was liable for disciplinary action. This letter was issued to the respondent workman without prejudiced to the Bank’s right of initiating disciplinary action for such violation of service condition and (iii) Exhibit-M-3 is the statement of one (01) customer namely Dineshwar Pd. Singh. 38. From perusal of the statement of Dineshwar Pd. Singh, customer of Bank having Savings Account No. 65 vide M-3, it appears that he had stated in writing to have seen altercation near the chamber of Bank Manager and one staff Ajay K. Sah and in the meantime, the respondent workman Vinod Prasad Ji came there and started abusing the Bank Manager and one Bank Manager tried to rang up Senior Manager, HRM, then the workman snatched away the telephone from the hands of Bank Manager and pushed him and caught hold of his neck and had also raised the chair in the hall and then he had intervened in the matter and pacify both of them. (iv) Exhibit.M-4 is the statement of another customer Govind Sah bearing Account No. 3181 and he also stated in writing that on 24.01.2005, he had seen crowd in the Bank and had seen that the respondent workman Vinod Prasad was in very anger and was pushing the Branch Manager and had snatched away the telephone from the hands of the Branch Manager at around 11.03 A.M. (v) Exhibit.M-5 is the statement of one Nil Mani Saurav i.e another customer of the Bank, who also stated that on 24.01.2005, the respondent workman with the staff of the Bank was abusing the Branch Manager and was using un-parliamentary words in the name of mother in abusing manner and was threatening him and had caught hold of the neck of the Manager and occurrence took place at around 11.25 A.M and this statement was recorded in the Branch of the Bank on 27.01.2005 before the Officer of the Bank. (vi) Exhibit.M-6 is the statement of one Laxman Pd. Singh, who was customer and landlord of the Bank and he had stated that on 24.01.2005, while he was getting work done in his house, then he heard the alarm raised from the Bank and then he went there and found that Bank staff Vinod Prasad i.e the respondent workman was abusing the Branch Manager and was abusing him in un-parliamentary words in the name of mother and was threatening him and had caught hold of the neck of the Manager by his both hands and was pushing him and the occurrence took place at around 11.25 A.M. This statement of the customer from landlord was recorded on 27.01.2005, the Branch of the Bank during preliminary enquiry. 39. Thus, from perusal of M-2, M-3, M-5 and M-6, it is evident that the respondent workman had not only abused in abusive language in the name of mother upon the Branch Manager i.e. the complainant, but he had also snatched away the telephone from him and had caught hold of the neck of the Branch Manager of the Bank and which amounts to gross indiscipline, disobedience and subordination on the part of delinquent workman. 40. It transpires that the learned Tribunal, after noticing all the facts i.e Exhibit. 40. It transpires that the learned Tribunal, after noticing all the facts i.e Exhibit. M-1 to M-6 and also M-2 series, Exhibit.M-9 had also found that the allegations against the respondent workman is serious but the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the charge sheet as well as preliminary enquiry in this case, appears to be passed partially on few relevant facts and partially on facts irrelevant and thus, this serious defect in the charge which cannot be sustained in law as held in the case of Calcutta Dock Labour Board versus Jaffar Imam reported in AIR 1966 SC 282 , 1966 SCC 211. The learned Tribunal further held that the instant charge sheet does not appear to be properly mentioned any of the alleged mis-conducts while adverting to a particular set of facts. 41. It was also observed by the learned Tribunal that the matter comes within undertype of enumerated misconduct and held that charge is defective in light of M.L.L Kumar versus Divisional Manager, A,P.S.R.T.C 1989 (59) F.L.R 597 (APHC), Andhra Pradesh High Court. 42. It also held that charge sheet suffers from a non- production or even a correct reproduction in substance of the abusive or disgraceful language as inevitable so as to enable arriving at conclusion, as to whether such words were abusive, disgraceful or insulting or not? 43. The learned Tribunal further held that the charges appears to be quite vague and ambiguous and thus, the charges appeared to be vindictive, prejudiced and malafied of the workman, so, none of the six (06) charges is legally sustainable or proved. 44. This Court finds that the above finding of the learned Tribunal is completely illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. 45. It has been held in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur reported in 2006 (5) SCC 123 at Para-12, 13 and 14 as follows:- “Para:- 12:- The specific issue which was, therefore, referred for determination by the Labour Court, related to the dispute as regards violation of Section 25-H of the Act. If the said provisions had not been found to be violated, the question of setting aside the order of termination by the Labour Court did not and could not arise. If the said provisions had not been found to be violated, the question of setting aside the order of termination by the Labour Court did not and could not arise. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise that the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal over the award of the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge was right, but then, only because the jurisdiction of the High Court, while exercising of its power of judicial review was limited, it would not mean that even a jurisdictional error could not have been corrected. The provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would be attracted if the inferior Tribunal has, inter alia, committed a jurisdictional error. What would be the ground for judicial review, in regard to the orders passed by an inferior Tribunal is no longer res integra. Para;-13:- In Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2003) 3 SCC 524 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 762] the issue which came for consideration before this Court was as to whether in the face of the provision for an appeal, the High Court could exercise its power of judicial review. It was held that when in an appeal power is vested in the High Court, ordinarily the writ jurisdiction could not be taken recourse to. Even in such a case, the Court was held to have limited jurisdiction. Para:-14:- In the instant case, the award of the Labour Court suffers from an illegality, which appears on the face of the record. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court emanated from the order of the reference. It could not have passed an order going beyond the terms of the reference. While passing the award, if the Labour Court exceeds its jurisdiction, the award must be held to be suffering from a jurisdictional error. It was capable of being corrected by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. The High Court, therefore, clearly fell in error in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction. The award and the judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The award is set aside to the extent of the order of reinstatement with back wages. The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court is, thus, allowed”. The award and the judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The award is set aside to the extent of the order of reinstatement with back wages. The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court is, thus, allowed”. 46. It has been held in the case of Union of India and Others reported in 2022 (1) SCC 373 at Para-23, 24 and 25 as follows:- “ Para - 23:- The well-ingrained principle of law is that it is the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee. Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for the courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority. Para-24:- Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty. The scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is available but with a limited scope. It is only when the penalty imposed appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that the courts would frown upon. Even in such a case, after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for the court to substitute its decision by prescribing the quantum of punishment. However, it is only in rare and exceptional cases where the court might to shorten the litigation may think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority that too after assigning cogent reasons. Para-25:- The principles have been culled out by a three- Judge Bench of this Court way back in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it was observed as under : (SCC p. 762, para 18) “18. Para-25:- The principles have been culled out by a three- Judge Bench of this Court way back in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it was observed as under : (SCC p. 762, para 18) “18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 47. It has been held in the case of Oshiar Prasad and Others versus Employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand reported in (4) SCC 71 at Para-22 as follows:- “Para -22:- It is thus clear that the appropriate Government is empowered to make a reference under Section 10 of the Act only when “industrial dispute exists” or “is apprehended between the parties”. Similarly, it is also clear that the Tribunal while answering the reference has to confine its inquiry to the question(s) referred and has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the question(s) or/and the terms of the reference while answering the reference. A fortiori, no inquiry can be made on those questions, which are not specifically referred to the Tribunal while answering the reference”. 48. In the case of General Manager (Operations) State Bank of India and Another versus R. Periyasamy reported in 2015 (3) SCC 101 at Para-9 as follows:- “Para -9:- In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya [ (2011) 4 SCC 584 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721] , this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 587, para 7) “7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44] , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [ (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806 : AIR 1997 SC 3387 ] , Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [ (1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [ (2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .)” It is not necessary to multiply authorities on this point. Suffice it to say that the law is well settled in this regard”. 49. Learned Tribunal has not gone through the evidence of the Management witnesses and the documents duly proved by the petitioner-Bank which were marked as Exhibit. M-2, Exhibit. M-3, Exhibit.M-4, Exhibit. M-5 and Exhibit. M-6 respectively and in which almost all the witnesses have stated that the respondent workman had abused the Branch Manager of the Bank in the name of mother and thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the exact word is not stated is perverse and vitiated and fit to be set aside. 50. Apart from this, it was not open for the learned Tribunal to apply its own finding without appreciating the evidence which was marked as Exhibit. 50. Apart from this, it was not open for the learned Tribunal to apply its own finding without appreciating the evidence which was marked as Exhibit. M-2 to M-6 and M-9 respectively. The learned Tribunal has completely overlooked and deliberately ignored the evidenced led by the petitioner Bank in support of the charges. 51. It is well settled from the judgment discussed above that once the workman had admitted in writing that Domestic Enquiry was fair and proper, then it will not be open for the learned Tribunal to look into the facts and it was incumbent upon him to only look into the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority by dismissing the appeal of the respondent workman unless there is violation of principle of natural justice. 52. So far as the vagueness of charges is concerned, it reveals that all the six charges were very clear and there was not vagueness in the charges. 53. This court on going through the records finds that even the respondent workman has admitted during his cross-examination before the Enquiry Officer by the representative of the Management that he had not taken any leave of the Bank before leaving the Headquarter and he was coming at late hours in the Bank which was not looked by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned Award. So far as the charges no. 3, 4 and 6 are concerned, the same has to be read together and the incident occurred on 24.01.2005 clearly indicates that the respondent workman had failed to show proper consideration and proper courtesy towards the Branch Manager and his behaviour was violant, indecent and disorderly manner in the premises of the Bank and his behavior was willfully disobedience to law. 54. Even the Act amounts to prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the Bank. If an employee abuses his superior officer i.e the Branch Manager of the bank in presence of his co-customers and employees, then duly amounts to insubordination and amounts to behave in indecent and improper manner and complete disregard to his superior officer and which affects the business of the Bank. If an employee abuses his superior officer i.e the Branch Manager of the bank in presence of his co-customers and employees, then duly amounts to insubordination and amounts to behave in indecent and improper manner and complete disregard to his superior officer and which affects the business of the Bank. If an employee cannot claim to arrive late at the Bank as a matter of right and the Branch Manager cannot be at fault with for questioning the late arrival of any employee, either the said employee Ajay K. Sah or the respondent workman Dr. Birendra Prasad. 55. It further transpires that even the Bank had issued advisory for making undue influence for his transfer through Mr. D.P Yadav, former Union Minister, Government of India for his posting at Muzzaffarpur Branch and it is also violative of the Bipartite Settlement of Clause No. 7(a) (b) (j) and 5(c) (e) (j). 56. It is well settled in view of the judgment reported in 2006 (5) SCC 123 that High Court can correct the Award if the Labour Court exceeds its jurisdiction. 57. It appears that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that not a single charge of any of the alleged six misconducts stood proved and hence, no question of punishment or his quantum towards the workman arises and has wrongly set aside the said punishment order. 58. It is evident that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence adduced on behalf of the Management Bank that the Workman-Respondent had caught the neck of the Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda which amounts to serious misconduct and which was proved from the evidence of Chief Manager/Branch Manager who was examined as MW-4 namely Birendra Prasad. The occurrence took place on 24.01.2005 when the Branch Manager had marked ‘Absence’ of one another workman Ajay K. Sah for his late arrival on his duty with the key or cash in absence of regular Head Cashier Hari Narayan. It resulted into some delay in cash transaction and hence, the Branch Manager had marked the ‘Absence’ of said Bank employee Ajay K. Sah for his late arrival but the respondent workman who was the Specialist Assistant had caught hold of neck of Branch Manager (Birendra Prasad) and which amounts to serious misconduct on the part of the Respondent workman. It resulted into some delay in cash transaction and hence, the Branch Manager had marked the ‘Absence’ of said Bank employee Ajay K. Sah for his late arrival but the respondent workman who was the Specialist Assistant had caught hold of neck of Branch Manager (Birendra Prasad) and which amounts to serious misconduct on the part of the Respondent workman. Such action of insubordination cannot be taken lightly as has been done by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award. 59. The learned Tribunal has not even discussed even the evidence of Management witnesses and its documents and the evidence of Respondent Workman and his witnesses and has been illegally held by the fact that charges were not properly framed. The above findings of the learned Tribunal is completely illegal and improper and not sustainable in view of the fact when the fairness and propriety in holding enquiry properly was accepted even by the delinquent workman/respondent before the Tribunal. Even the learned Tribunal vide order dated 24.01.2014 held that domestic enquiry was held as fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 60. Thus, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to enter into the merits of the charges or nature of allegations and at best, the learned Tribunal could have considered the case of the workman on the point of quantum of sentence by refusing it but by completely setting aside the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority amounts to grave illegality committed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. 61. Even the evidence of Branch Manager Birendra Prasad was substantiated by one Senior Manager (HRM), Bank of Baroda, Regional Office who was hearing the altercation on the phone call. 62. This is a case of violation of Clauses 7(a)(b)(j) and 5 (c)(e)(j) of the Bipertite Settlement (supplementary) dated 10.04.2002 respectively in respect of alleged occurrence which took place on 24.01.2005 at around 11:20 in Mohammadpur Branch, District Muzzafarpur where the Respondent Workman was posted. During the departmental enquiry, the workman had participated and the Management had given full opportunity and thereafter, the Enquiry Report dated 28.02.2006 marked as Exhibit-M-5 along with the enquiry proceedings and order sheets marked as Exhibit-M3, Exhibit-M-4 respectively were submitted and the Respondent workman was held guilty of all the five (05) charges as made in the charge sheet. 63. During the departmental enquiry, the workman had participated and the Management had given full opportunity and thereafter, the Enquiry Report dated 28.02.2006 marked as Exhibit-M-5 along with the enquiry proceedings and order sheets marked as Exhibit-M3, Exhibit-M-4 respectively were submitted and the Respondent workman was held guilty of all the five (05) charges as made in the charge sheet. 63. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued to the Workman within seven (07) days and the Workman submitted his reply on 16.03.2006 by explaining that he was not given reasonable opportunity in the enquiry proceeding, however, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 21.03.2006 (Exhibit-M-6), in consonance/concurrent with a finding of Enquiry Officer imposed the punishment of warning for the first three (03) minor charges and that of lowering down in his pay scale by two stages, one state and two stage each with cumulative effect for the major misconducts towards the workman respectively. 64. However, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 31.03.2006 (i.e. Exhibit-M 6/1) inflicted upon the workman the aforesaid punishment for their aforesaid minor and major misconducts. Thereafter, even the DGM/Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.08.2006 (i.e. Exhibit-M 6/2) upheld the punishment of the workman as held by the Disciplinary Authority for his aforesaid alleged minor and major misconduct concerned. Thus, the workman was given full opportunity not only by the Disciplinary Authority but also by the Appellate Authority. 65. So far as the judgment reported in 2021 (19) SCC 281 is concerned, there is limited scope of interference by the Tribunal more so, when the domestic enquiry has been held to be fair and proper. 66. Thus, the learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while interfering with the findings recorded during course of enquiry. The Tribunal could not have acted as a Court of Appeal and has exceeded its jurisdiction while appreciating the findings recorded in the course of domestic enquiry, particularly in view of the fact that this is a case of complete insubordination by the workman by humiliating the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda in open public view during working hours. 67. 67. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal committed grave illegality by interfering with the order of punishment dated 31.03.2006 and as such, the Award dated 10.04.2015 passed by Sri Kishori Ram, then learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad is set aside and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on 31.03.2006 and affirmed by the Appellate Authority is hereby upheld and the punishments imposed by the Disciplinary Authority upon the Workman-Respondent No. 2 is restored. 68. Thus, this W. P. (L). No. 1482 of 2016 is allowed with the observation as mentioned above.