JUDGMENT : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. All these Writ Appeals are filed aggrieved by the common order, dated 14.03.2024, passed by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.25064 and 28129 of 2011, which were filed challenging the Award dated 18.07.2011 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.74 of 2008, therefore, all the Writ Appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The employer filed W.A.Nos.315 and 316 of 2024 assailing the common order dated 14.03.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.25064 and 28129 of 2011, respectively, whereunder W.P.No.25064 of 2011 was dismissed and W.P.No.28129 of 2011 was allowed quashing the impugned Award of the Labour Court insofar as treating the workman as a fresh workman and also treating the out of service period as ‘not on duty’ with continuity of service. 3. The workman filed W.A.No.649 of 2024 against the order passed in W.P.No.28129 of 2011, insofar as not granting monetary benefits for the out of service period though the same was ordered to be treated as ‘on duty’. 4. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Labour Court. 5. Heard Sri M.Radhakrishna Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt N.Seethalaxmi, learned counsel on record for the appellants in W.A.Nos.315 and 316 of 2024, and the respondents in W.A.No.649 of 2024, and Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.649 of 2024 and the respondent in W.A.Nos.315 and 316 of 2024. 6. The factual matrix of the case in brief as averred by the workman before the Labour Court is that initially, he was appointed as probation workman on 01.05.1995; that after completion of probation, his services were confirmed on 01.11.1997; that on 07.02.2008, when he was on duty on Machine No.4 Band Building-II as Operator, at about 11 am., the Supervisor instructed him to load 1010 I cut roll and accordingly, he loaded the same; that after completion of the said work, again the workman asked the Supervisor as to which cut roll is to be loaded, for which the Supervisor advised to load 1056 cut role and accordingly, the workman attended to the same. It was further case of the workman that when the Supervisor was searching for breaker cut roll at Breaker stand storage, suddenly a small breaker cut roll accidentally slipped from the stand and fell on the floor touching the workman’s feet, due to which he raised the hands in pain and in that process, one of his hands touched the Supervisor who was standing beside him; that he never behaved in angry mood with the Supervisor and he did not slap the Supervisor either intentionally or unintentionally, as alleged by the Supervisor. 7. On the other hand, the case of the employer as narrated in the counter filed before the Labour Court is that the workman was assigned the job of Band Building Operator; that on 07.02.2008 at about 10 am, the Supervisor instructed the workman to load 1090 I cut roll on the machine as per the schedule, however, the workman denied to load the same and disobeyed the instructions of the Supervisor despite the Supervisor explaining that as per work schedule, 1090 I cut roll has to be loaded on the machine otherwise there will be less purity of production; that without following the instructions of the Supervisor, the workman loaded 1010 I cut roll as against 1090 I cut roll without knowledge and consent of the Supervisor. 7.1. 7.1. It is further case of the employer that at about 12.30 pm., the Supervisor instructed the workman to load 1056 I cut roll on the machine, but again the workman insisted the Supervisor for some other roll and the Supervisor explained the workman to load only 1056 I cut roll and later, the Supervisor went to breaker stand storage area for searching the breaker cut rolls; that the workman without loading 1056 I cut roll on the machine followed the Supervisor to Breakers Stand and forced him to allot some other load; and at that time, a small breaker (small fabric roll) suddenly slipped from the Breaker’s stand and fell on the feet of the workman; that immediately, the workman got angry and slapped the Supervisor on his left cheek and has also thrown the said small breaker on the Supervisor, as a result, the Supervisor sustained injury on his left cheek; and that on account of acts of the workman, the working atmosphere in the Band Building-II Department got disturbed and the workers stopped their work for some time in the Department. 8. Thereafter, the Supervisor gave complaint to the Management on the very same day i.e., on 07.02.2008 intimating about the incident and requesting to take necessary action against the workman. Basing on the said complaint, charge sheet was issued to the workman calling for an explanation, for which the workman submitted his explanation and not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the workman, an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 23.02.2008; that the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry; that in the enquiry, on behalf of the employer, the Supervisor was examined as M.W-1 and Senior Officer (HR) was examined as M.W-2 and Exs.M-1 to M-15 were marked. On behalf of the workman, the workman himself got examined as D.W-1 and the representation of the workman dated 16.03.2008 was marked as Ex.D-1; and that the Enquiry Officer, basing on the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that charges framed against the workman were proved and accordingly, submitted his report dated 02.05.2008. 9. On behalf of the workman, the workman himself got examined as D.W-1 and the representation of the workman dated 16.03.2008 was marked as Ex.D-1; and that the Enquiry Officer, basing on the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that charges framed against the workman were proved and accordingly, submitted his report dated 02.05.2008. 9. The employer based on the enquiry report issued letter dated 05.06.2008 calling for objections from the workman on the findings of the Enquiry Officer; that in response thereto, the workman submitted his objections; that not satisfied with the objections submitted by the workman, the employer issued second show cause notice on 06.09.2008 proposing to impose punishment of dismissal from service, for which the workman submitted his reply on 10.09.2008, however, not satisfied with the same, the employer passed order of dismissal from service against the workman vide order dated 23.09.2008. 10. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2008, the workman approached the Labour Court by filing I.D.No.74 of 2008 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court vide Award, dated 18.07.2011, set aside the dismissal order dated 23.09.2008 and directed the employer to reinstate the workman into service as fresh candidate by fixing his salary at which he was drawing at the time of his suspension by treating the absent period as ‘not on duty’. The Labour Court further ordered that the workman is not entitled to any monetary benefits during the absent period i.e., from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement. 11. Challenging the Award dated 18.07.2011, the employer filed W.P.No.25064 of 2011, whereas the workman filed W.P.No.28129 of 2011 seeking a direction to the employer to treat the absent period as ‘on duty’ along with backwages and to extend all consequential benefits. The learned single Judge clubbed both the Writ Petitions and vide common order dated 14.03.2024 dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the employer and allowed the Writ Petition filed by the workman, thereby, quashing the impugned Award insofar as treating the workman as fresh workman and also treating the out of service period as ‘not on duty’, however, without any monetary benefits. Aggrieved by the said common order, the employer and the workman filed the present Writ Appeals, as stated supra. 12. Aggrieved by the said common order, the employer and the workman filed the present Writ Appeals, as stated supra. 12. Learned senior counsel appearing for the employer contended that the learned single Judge has on erroneous consideration of the evidence on record dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the employer; that the learned single Judge as well as the Labour Court have failed to appreciate the fact that the workman did not follow the instructions of the Supervisor which amounts to disobedience and the workman also slapped the Supervisor under the guise of reaction to the accidental fall of cut roll, which clearly amounts to indiscipline and misconduct. Learned counsel further contended that the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge failed to consider the fact that the workman had followed the Supervisor to Breakers stand storage which is not his work place. He further contended that even if it is considered that there is sudden reaction on the part of the workman due to fall of cut roll on his feet, raising of hand can only touch chin or any other part, however, it would not touch cheek of the Supervisor, which clearly show that the workman intentionally slapped the Supervisor which fact was not properly considered by both the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge. 12.1. Learned senior counsel further contended that proper enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer, wherein two witnesses were examined and 15 exhibits were marked on behalf of the employer, however, the Labour Court though did not believe the contention of the workman, interfered with the punishment imposed on him on the ground of proportionality. He further contended that the learned single Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and has come to an erroneous conclusion. He further contended that the observation of the learned single Judge in the impugned order that the intention of assault on the part of the workman and his misconduct have not been established is contrary to the evidence and material available on record. By contending thus, learned senior counsel prayed to allow the Writ Appeals filed by the employer and to dismiss the Writ Appeal filed by the workman. 13. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel appearing for the Management relied upon number of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which are detailed as hereunder:- 13.1. By contending thus, learned senior counsel prayed to allow the Writ Appeals filed by the employer and to dismiss the Writ Appeal filed by the workman. 13. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel appearing for the Management relied upon number of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which are detailed as hereunder:- 13.1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hombe Gowda EDN Trust & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka & Others , [2003 LLR 141] held as under :- “The jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment could be exercised only when, inter alia, it is found to be grossly disproportionate. … In view of the change in economic policy of the country, it may not now be proper to allow the employees to break the discipline with impunity and maintenance of discipline of an institution is equally important.” 13.2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Employers, Management, Collery, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Etc. vs Bihar Collery Kamgar Union through Workmen , 2005 LLR 373 held as under:- “The Industrial Tribunal under Section 11 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment awarded in the domestic inquiry for good and valid reasons. If the Tribunal decides to interfere with 'such punishment it should bear in mind the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the offence and the stringency of the punishment. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the finding of the learned Single Judge who has rightly held that the assault on the senior officials by the workmen in discharging of their duties is a misconduct and in such a situation, officials who are managing the affairs will be demoralized. 13.3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharm a , [2005 LLR 420] held as under :- “The jurisdiction under section 107A of the Act to interfere with punishment when it is a discharge or dismissal can be exercised by the Labour Court only when it is satisfied that the discharge or dismissal is not justified Similarly, the High Court gets jurisdiction to interfere with the. punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only when it finds that the punishment imposed, is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved.” The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed as hereunder:- “Discipline at the work place in an organization like the employer herein is the sine qua non for the efficient working of the organization. When an employee breaches such discipline and the employer terminates his services, it is not open to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved. …. “Obedience to authority in a work place is not slavery, It is not violative of one's natural rights it is essential for the prosperity of the organization as well as that of its employees When in such a-situation, a punishment of termination is awarded for hitting and injuring a superior officer supervising the work of the employee, with no extenuating circumstance established, it cannot be said to be not justified. It cannot certainly be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate. “ 13.4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs. N. K. Singh , [2007 LLR 109] held as hereunder:- “We find that the Labour Court has found the inquiry to be fair and proper. The conduct highlighted by the management and established in inquiry was certainly of very grave nature. The Labour Court and the High Court have not found that misconduct was of any minor nature. On the contrary, the finding on facts that the acts complained of were established has not been disturbed. That being so, the leniency shown by the Labour Court is clearly unwarranted and would in fact encourage indiscipline. Without indicating any reason as to why it was felt that the punishment was disproportionate, the Labour Court should not have passed the order in the manner done. The case of R.P. Singh was not oh a similar footing. He was one of the persons instigating whereas the respondent was the person who committed the acts. Therefore, the orders of the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and are set aside. The order of dismissal from service in the disciplinary proceedings stand restored.” 13.5. He was one of the persons instigating whereas the respondent was the person who committed the acts. Therefore, the orders of the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and are set aside. The order of dismissal from service in the disciplinary proceedings stand restored.” 13.5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Subrata Nath v. Union of India , [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998] held as under :- “It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere. ….. In exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot reapprecaite the evidence to arrie at its own conclusion in respect of penalty imposed unless and untilthe pubnishment imposed is so disproportiaonte to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal.” 13.6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation v. Mavji Jethalal Rathod , [2024 LLR 641] held as hereunder:- “In Domestic Enquiry, the test of proof of charge is preponderance of probability. The charge is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. As long as there is some evidence on record to establish the connection with the charge, no perversity can be found in the finding of guilt. It is only in cases where the finding of guilt is not based on any evidence or where there is total absence of evidence, Court or Tribunal can interfere in the finding of guilt.” The Hon'ble Apex Court further held as under:- “After holding that the charges against the Workman were proved, the Tribunal ought to have answered the Reference in the negative by upholding the penalty of dismissal/discharge. The learned Presiding Officer has rewarded the Workman with reinstatement with 20% back wages along with seniority and consequential benefits despite commission of serious misconduct of assaulting his superior officer. The impugned Award is therefore liable to be set aside.” 13.7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. The learned Presiding Officer has rewarded the Workman with reinstatement with 20% back wages along with seniority and consequential benefits despite commission of serious misconduct of assaulting his superior officer. The impugned Award is therefore liable to be set aside.” 13.7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Hira Singh Parihar , [ 2020 LLR 122 ] held as hereunder:- “A disciplinary inquiry is conducted by the employer to inquire into a charge or misconduct pertaining to a breach of the rules and regulations governing the service of the employer. The standard of proof is not that governed by a criminal trial. In exercising judicial review, the test is whether the findings are based on some evidence. The High Court may interfere with only in a case where there is no evidence to sustain the charge of misconduct.” 13.8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Management, Carborandum Universal, Ranipet vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore & Anr. , [2017 LLR 917] , held as hereunder:- “'The courts below by condoning an act of physical violence have undermined the discipline in the organisation, hence, in the above factual backdrop, it can never be said that the Industrial Tribunal could have exercised its authority under Section 11A of the Act to interfere with the punishment of dismissal." 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman contended that except examining the complainant and the Senior Officer (HR) as witnesses, no other workmen were examined by the employer in the enquiry, therefore, the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge have come to a right conclusion that the workman is not guilty of charges framed against him. Learned counsel further contended that the contention of the employer that there was misconduct on the part of the workman is not accepted by the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge. He further contended that once the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the workman is not guilty of misconduct, the Labour Court ought to have reinstated the workman with continuity of service and with all attendant benefits, instead of directing the employer to appoint him as fresh candidate. Learned counsel further contended that the learned single Judge having treated the out of service period as ‘on duty’, has committed error in not giving monetary benefits to the workman for the said period. Learned counsel further contended that the learned single Judge having treated the out of service period as ‘on duty’, has committed error in not giving monetary benefits to the workman for the said period. Learned counsel finally contended that there is no fault on the part of the workman and he was unnecessarily victimized and therefore, he is entitled to all the benefits and prayed this Court to allow the Writ Appeal filed by the workman. 15. Learned counsel for the workman relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- 15.1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao , [ AIR 1963 SC 1723 ] held as hereunder:- “ The High Court again observed that the orders passed by the Departmental Authorities were vitiated because of two other matters (1) that the enquiry officer declined to summon and examine two witnesses for the defence even though a request in that behalf was made; and (ii) that there was no charge against the respondent of "falsifying the record by omitting to write what he had done or what happened in the police station, and he had not been given an opportunity of meeting such a charge and therefore the respondent had no fair hearing consistent with the principles of natural justice.” 15.2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and ors., (1999) 2 SCC 10 held as hereunder:- “The findings recorded in a domestic enquiry can be characterised as perverse if it is shown that such findings are not supported by any evidence on record or are not based on the evidence adduced by the parties or no reasonable person could have come to those findings on the basis of that evidence.” Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. A broad distinction has therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse.” 15.3. A broad distinction has therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse.” 15.3. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Management of Madurantakam, Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. S. Viswanathan , [ (2005) 3 SCC 193 ] is totally different to the present set of facts and hence, the same is not applicable. 15.4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of Karnataka vs. Gowramma and ors., (2007) 13 SCC 482 held as hereunder:- “Reliance on the decision without looking into the factual background of the case before it is clearly impermissible. A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving a judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates - (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. (See: State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Ors. (1970) ILLJ 662 SC and Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 44 . A case is a precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in Act of Parliament. (1970) ILLJ 662 SC and Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 44 . A case is a precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in Act of Parliament. In Quinn v. Leathem (1901) AC 495 (H.L.), Earl of Halsbury LC observed that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which are found there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are found and a case is only an authority for what it actually decides.” 15.5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava , [ 2021 (2) SCC 612 ] held as hereunder:- “It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the Rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory Rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.” 15.6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 held as hereunder:- “It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi- criminal in nature, there should be some evidences to prove the charge. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 held as hereunder:- “It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi- criminal in nature, there should be some evidences to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial, i.e., beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with. 15.7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Mysore vs. K. Manche Gowda , [ AIR 1964 SC 506 C.B] held as hereunder:- “Before we close, it would be necessary to make one point clear. It is suggested that the past record of a government servant, if it is intended to be relied upon for imposing a punishment, should be made specific charge in the first stage of the enquiry itself and, if it is not so done, it cannot be relied upon after the enquiry is closed and the report is submitted to the authority entitled to impose the punishment. An enquiry against a government servant is one continuous process, though for convenience it is done in two stages. The report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is only recommendatory in nature and the final authority which scrutinizes it and imposes punishment is the authority empowered to impose the same. Whether a particular person has a reasonable opportunity or not depends, to some extent, upon the nature of the subject- matter of the enquiry. But it is not necessary in this case to decide whether such previous record can be made the subject matter of charge at the first stage of the enquiry. Whether a particular person has a reasonable opportunity or not depends, to some extent, upon the nature of the subject- matter of the enquiry. But it is not necessary in this case to decide whether such previous record can be made the subject matter of charge at the first stage of the enquiry. But, nothing in law prevents the punishing authority from taking that fact into consideration during the second stage of the enquiry, for essentially it relates more to the domain of punishment rather than to that of guilt. But what is essential is that the government servant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to know that fact and meet the same.” 15.8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arrack Bottling Unit, Khammam vs. Labour Court–cum–Industrial Tribunal, Warangal, 2012 (1) ALD 220 D.B held as hereunder:- “It is quite often reiterated by the Apex Court and the High Courts that the High Courts, while reviewing the awards of the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts, cannot go into the question of adequacy or inadequacy, sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence on the basis of which the charges are held to have been proved, and if they find that the findings are grounded on some substantial acceptable evidence, the findings cannot be upset. The High Courts in exercise of their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot re- appreciate evidence and record a finding on a question of fact different from the one recorded by the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts even in a case where two views are possible from the same evidence. Re-appraisal of evidence is the power of the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts, and not of the High Courts.” 15.9. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and has also carefully gone through the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 16. Perusal of record would disclose that admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of incident on 07.02.2008. However, there are conflicting versions by the employer and the workman with regard to the manner in which the incident had occurred. 17. 16. Perusal of record would disclose that admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of incident on 07.02.2008. However, there are conflicting versions by the employer and the workman with regard to the manner in which the incident had occurred. 17. It is the specific case of the employer that the workman was supposed to work as Operate at a specified place i.e., Band Building-II, however, he followed the Supervisor to the Breakers stand storage, where he slapped the Supervisor on his left cheek. 18. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the workman that a small breaker cut roll fell on his feet, due to which he raised his hand in pain and it accidentally touched the Supervisor. 19. With regard to the said incident, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer, wherein on behalf of the employer, the Supervisor and the Senior Officer (H.R) were examined as M.Ws.1 and 2, respectively, and on behalf of the workman, he got himself examined as R.W-1. 20. In fact, it is the case of either party that no workmen were present at the relevant time of the incident. Therefore, no workmen were examined on behalf of either parties in support of their respective versions regarding the incident. In the light of the same, the observation of the learned single Judge in the impugned order that no co-workers were examined on behalf of the employer equally applies to the workman. 21. It is relevant to be noted that, in the instant case, the respondent/ workman was given enough opportunity of being heard and producing witness to support his version, however, except examining himself as a witness, he did not choose to examine anyone on his behalf. The Enquiry Officer, based on the evidence and material placed before it in the form of oral evidence of M.Ws.1 and 2 and documentary evidence, i.e., Exs.M-1 to M-15, has come to conclusion that the workman was guilty of the charges. In fact, the Labour Court also held that enquiry is proper, valid and binding on the parties and further observed that the explanation of the workman that he accidentally hit the Supervisor is not believable. It is not the case of the workman that the findings of the Labour Court are perverse. 22. In fact, the Labour Court also held that enquiry is proper, valid and binding on the parties and further observed that the explanation of the workman that he accidentally hit the Supervisor is not believable. It is not the case of the workman that the findings of the Labour Court are perverse. 22. It is relevant to note that even if the contention of the workman is taken into consideration that as the breaker cut roll fell on his feet, due to pain he raised his hand and it accidentally touched the Supervisor, there is no probability or any possibility of the hand of the workman touching the left cheek of the Supervisor. Further, the Supervisor immediately after the incident lodged a complaint with the Management, whereas the workman did not report the same to the Management. In the cross-examination, the workman specifically admitted that if there is any problem, the same has to be indicated to the personnel concerned, but should not resort to direct action. 23. In fact, though M.W-2 is not an eye-witness to the incident, deposed to the effect that in the past, the workman committed various acts of misconduct and on the complaints given by the personnel concerned, the Management issued show-cause notices to the workman, to which he submitted his explanation and the same were marked as Exs.M-9 to M-15. This statement of M.W-2 coupled with Exs.M-9 to M-15 shows the past conduct of the workman. 24. The Labour Court in its Award dated 18.07.2011 specifically observed as under:- “Though the petitioner is saying that he never intended to slap on the cheek of his Supervisor there was no proper reason for his following the Supervisor to the store. And further the explanation of the petitioner that hand raised all of a sudden due to pain when the cut roll fallen on his feet and accidentally it touched the cheek of the Supervisor is also not believable.” 25. The Labour Court further held that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is proper, valid and binding on the parties. The Labour Court in its Award further observed as hereunder:- “The Supervisor alone as MW-1 spoke that the petitioner slapped on his left cheek when a cut roll fallen on his feet. The Labour Court further held that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is proper, valid and binding on the parties. The Labour Court in its Award further observed as hereunder:- “The Supervisor alone as MW-1 spoke that the petitioner slapped on his left cheek when a cut roll fallen on his feet. No co-workers who were available in the factory at that particular point of time were examined in support of the said version of M.W-1. But, the petitioner himself clearly stated in his explanation and also in his evident when cut roll fallen on his feet, due to pain he raised his hand, accidentally it came into contact with the left cheek of the Supervisor which is not believable. Whether the slapping on the cheek of the Supervisor angrily, intentionally or accident or not, but the incident is proved.” 26. It is relevant to note that despite above specific observations with regard to incident, the Labour Court has interfered with the punishment of dismissal from service only on the ground that the said punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of offence. 27. It is also evident from record that with regard to the misconduct of the workman on previous occasions with his co-employees /workman, number of complaints have been filed against him, which were marked as Exs.M-9 to M-15 before the Enquiry Officer. Thus, in the light of the said evidence, credence can be given to the contention of the Supervisor that the workman disobeyed his orders and followed him to Breakers Stand storage and slapped him on his left cheek. 28. Admittedly, the workman was posted to work as Operator on Machine No.4 in Band Building-II as Operator and he is expected to discharge his duties at his work place and the incident has taken place at Breakers stand storage. The workman has not given any reason as to for what purpose he moved to Breakers stand storage when he was supposed to work at his specified place i.e., Band Building-II. This strengthens the contention of the employer that workman followed the Supervisor to the Breakers stand storage and has slapped the Supervisor. 29. Therefore, the observation of the learned single Judge that there is no misconduct on the part of the workman and further, no intention of assault can be attributed to the workman is erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record. 30. 29. Therefore, the observation of the learned single Judge that there is no misconduct on the part of the workman and further, no intention of assault can be attributed to the workman is erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record. 30. In the present case, it is established that there is clear indiscipline, disobedience and misconduct on the part of the workman and further, the workman moved from his place of work, where he was supposed to discharge his duties, and followed the Supervisor to Breaker’s stand storage and slapped the Supervisor. In the light of clear observation of the Labour Court that the contention of the workman that he raised his hand in pain when a small breaker stand fell on his feet and it accidentally touched the cheek of the Supervisor is unbelievable. The acts of the workman clearly amounts to indiscipline, disobedience and misconduct, and if the workman is not punished for such acts, it will have demoralized effect on the higher officials and will also have adverse affect on the working atmosphere in the institution or factory, as the case may be. 31. Thus, this Court finds that the observations and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hombe Gowda EDN Trust’s case (cited supra), Employers Manager Collery ’s case (cited supra), Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited’s case (cited supra) and Management Carborandum Universal Ranipet’s case (cited supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 32. Further, taking into consideration the fact that charges were proved in the enquiry and also the past conduct of the workman as evidenced by Exs.M-9 to M-15, this Court is of the view that the punishment imposed on the workman is not disproportionate to the gravity of charges framed against him. Thus, with due respect to the Hon’ble Apex Court, the proposition laid down in Jagdish Chandra Sharma’s case (cited supra) is duly followed in the instant case. 33. It is further apt to note that in the case on hand, the disciplinary authority has come to a categorical conclusion that the charges leveled against the workman are proved based on the evidence on record, i.e., MWs.1 and 2 and Exs.M-1 to M-15, which were marked on behalf of the employer. 33. It is further apt to note that in the case on hand, the disciplinary authority has come to a categorical conclusion that the charges leveled against the workman are proved based on the evidence on record, i.e., MWs.1 and 2 and Exs.M-1 to M-15, which were marked on behalf of the employer. It is also pertinent to note that the workman except examining himself as D.W-1 has not led any evidence rebutting the evidence placed on record by the employer about his insubordination, indiscipline and misconduct also his past conduct. Further, the Labour Court having observed that the explanation of the workman that when the cut roll fell on his feet, due to pain he raised his hand and it accidentally touched the cheek of the Supervisor is not believable, interfered with the punishment imposed on the workman only on the ground of proportionality. 34. As regards the observation of the learned single Judge in the impugned order that no intention can be attributed to the workman to assault the Supervisor and that sudden unexpected incident has been erroneously treated by the Management as misconduct of the workman, in the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that said observations of the learned single Judge is contrary to the evidence and material placed on record and the same amounts to re-appreciation of the evidence on record which is impermissible while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subrata Nath’ s case (cited supra). 35. It is relevant to note that the learned single Judge has failed to consider the fact that the workman has neither led any evidence in support of his self-testimony nor led any evidence rebutting the case of the Management as regards the occurrence of the incident and also his past conduct. 36. Therefore, taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, i.e., disobeying the instructions of the Supervisor with regard to loading of cut roll of particular size in the machine and his following the Supervisor to Breaker’s Stand Storage leaving the Band Building-II where he was supposed to discharge his duties, and his forcing the Supervisor to allot some other work to him, shows the attitude and behavior of the workman. Admittedly, the incident in question occurred on the same day when the workman reportedly disobeyed the instructions of the Supervisor at the work place. The intention of the workman can be gathered from the chain of events that occurred on the date of incident. In such a backdrop, as rightly observed by the Labour Court, the version of the workman that his hand accidentally touched the cheek of the Supervisor as he raised his hand in pain due to sudden fall of cut roll on his feet cannot be believed. Hence, this Court holds that the act of the workman i.e., his hand touching the cheek of the Supervisor, which otherwise means slapping the Supervisor is intentional and this misconduct or misdeed of the workman is proved in the enquiry. 37. Here, it is to apt to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arrack Bottling Unit, Khammam’s case (cited supra), wherein it is held that the High Courts in exercise of their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot re- appreciate evidence and record a finding on a question of fact different from the one recorded by the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts even in a case where two views are possible from the same evidence. Re-appraisal of evidence is the power of the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts, and not of the High Courts. Therefore, the finding of the learned single Judge that no intention of assault can be attributed to the workman is erroneous. 38. Further, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdish Chandra Sharma’s case (cited supra), wherein it is observed that when the workman breaches discipline and the employer terminates his services, it is not open to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to take a view mechanically that the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved unless the findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse and without any evidence and is based on erroneous consideration of the evidence and material available on record. 39. In the instant case, the test of preponderance of probability is established. The said proposition is squarely applicable to the case on hand. 39. In the instant case, the test of preponderance of probability is established. The said proposition is squarely applicable to the case on hand. As stated supra, the charge of misconduct and indiscipline is proved against the workman, hence, it was not open for the Labour Court to take a view that the punishment of dismissal of the workman from service is disproportionate to the charges proved. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned single Judge has erred in holding that the guilt of the employee/workman was not proved and hence, he should be reinstated into service with continuity of service. 40. For the foregoing reasons, discussion and in the light of the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed supra, this Court holds that the impugned order of the learned single Judge is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 41. Insofar as the Award passed by the Labour Court is concerned, the Labour Court has specifically observed that the version of the workman that his hand accidentally touched the cheek of the Supervisor is not believable, which infers that he has slapped the Supervisor which is a serious misconduct. Apart from that, the workman did not follow the instructions of the Supervisor which amounts to disobedience. Further, he has moved from the workplace where he is supposed to discharge his duties and followed the Supervisor to Breaker’s stand storage which amounts to indiscipline. It is also evident from record that there are number of complaints against the workman with regard to his conduct, which infers that the workman has aggressive behavior and is a trouble maker. If appropriate disciplinary action is not taken against the workman, it may lead to indiscipline among the co-workers. Further, if a person like the workman, who has aggressive behavior and also a trouble maker, is reinstated and allowed to work in the institution, then the atmosphere gets vitiated and would be embarrassment to the superior officials to work with him. Therefore, the Award passed by the Labour Court reinstating the workman afresh is also liable to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside. 42. Accordingly, W.A.Nos.315 and 316 of 2024 are allowed and W.A.No.649 of 2024 is dismissed. 43. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.