JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting-aside the Award dated 18.09.2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 14 of 1995; whereby the termination of services of the petitioner has been held to be valid and justified. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the company as a Reja (Ex-T. No. 207885, P. No. 121737) in the Material Handling Services (MHS) Department on the basis of alleged succession to the services of one late Sri Budhu, who was an erstwhile employee of TISCO Ltd. It was subsequently alleged that the petitioner had fraudulently secured employment by impersonating herself as the daughter of late Budhu (P. No. 14689) and submitting a false affidavit during the pre-registration process. On verification, it was found that the petitioner’s actual identity is Smt. Shurkuni, daughter of Ghurkunda Bhumij, and that she had no familial relation whatsoever with late Budhu. Treating such impersonation for securing employment as misconduct under Clause 23 of certified standing order of the company, chargesheet No. MHS/H/2353/80-C dated 29.08.1991 was issued by the Divisional Manager MHS, service department. After receiving an unsatisfactory explanation from the petitioner on 02.09.1991, the management instituted a domestic enquiry, appointed an Enquiry Officer and Management Representative, and conducted proceedings as per procedure. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings and held the petitioner guilty of serious misconduct. The petitioner was granted opportunity to respond to the proposed punishment. Upon consideration, the Disciplinary Authority discharged her from service with effect from 26.06.1992. 4. Thereafter, a reference was made to the Labour Court, and by an Award dated 18.09.2008, the Labour Court upheld the validity of the termination and found that the domestic enquiry had been conducted fairly. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner has preferred the present writ application. 5. It has been submitted by Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that the entire domestic enquiry was in contravention of the principles of natural justice, having been conducted in a pre-determined manner. It has also been submitted that the disciplinary action initiated by the Divisional Manager (MHS) was not the competent authority. The petitioner claims that as per Board Resolution only the Managing Director was authorized to take disciplinary action, and such power could not be further delegated. It has also been submitted that the disciplinary action initiated by the Divisional Manager (MHS) was not the competent authority. The petitioner claims that as per Board Resolution only the Managing Director was authorized to take disciplinary action, and such power could not be further delegated. Ld. Sr. Counsel further contended that the charges were premised solely on the complaint of one Sri Shailendra Mahto, M.P., who was not examined in the proceedings. The petitioner was denied the right of cross-examination, and later, Sri Mahto also withdrew his complaint affirming that the petitioner was indeed the daughter of late Budhu which was a crucial fact ignored by the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court. It has also been contended that the Labour Court’s findings are perverse and based on no evidence. No attempt was made to examine the alleged impersonator or any independent witnesses. Moreover, procedural lapses vitiate the very foundation of the enquiry. Ld. Sr. Counsel lastly submits that the impugned Award suffers from errors of law and fact and is liable to be quashed, being arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law. The petitioner impersonated herself as Sonamayee, daughter of late Budhu, and obtained employment fraudulently. Pursuant to the complaint received, due enquiry was initiated which was fair and proper. The petitioner was given adequate opportunity to present her case, cross-examine witnesses, and submit evidence. The Enquiry Officer, upon considering all relevant material, concluded that the petitioner is in fact the daughter of Ghurkunda Bhumij and not of late Budhu as claimed. The misconduct of impersonation is serious in nature under the standing orders of the company. He further contended that prior to discharge, the petitioner was issued second show-cause notice dated 03.06.1992, and her explanation dated 08.06.1992 was considered before passing the final order on 26.06.1992. 7. Respondents further assert that the Divisional Manager (MHS), being the Head of Department, was competent and duly authorized under the company’s delegation of powers to issue chargesheet and pass the discharge order. Accordingly, it has been submitted by the counsel for the Respondent-Company that the Labour Court, after comprehensive examination of the oral and documentary evidence, found the enquiry to be fair and the punishment to be proportionate. The findings being reasoned and evidence-based, no interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, it has been submitted by the counsel for the Respondent-Company that the Labour Court, after comprehensive examination of the oral and documentary evidence, found the enquiry to be fair and the punishment to be proportionate. The findings being reasoned and evidence-based, no interference is warranted. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the Award, this Court proceeds to examine whether the order of dismissal of the Petitioner, Smt. Sonamayee, from the services of the Respondent Company, TISCO Ltd., is sustainable in the eye of law. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged on the strength of her claim as successor to her father, late Budhu, an ex-employee of TISCO Ltd. The management’s main allegation is that the petitioner is not, in truth, Budhu’s daughter, and that she fraudulently secured appointment by impersonation and submitting false documents. The foundation of the impugned dismissal order is thus alleged serious misconduct, warranting disciplinary proceedings. Upon issuance of the chargesheet, a domestic enquiry was conducted wherein the management asserts due compliance with the requirements of natural justice, affording the petitioner an opportunity to participate and offer her defence. Based on the findings of the enquiry, and after considering her response, the petitioner was discharge from service. 9. The Labour Court has, upon detailed consideration of the both sides, had concluded that management of M/S TISCO Ltd, was able to prove that Divisional Manager (MHS) was competent and authorised to issue chargesheet and as such the Enquiry officer Mr. Shishir Sinha was also competent to hold an enquiry in this matter. The relevant para is quoted herein below: “13………from perusal of para 11 of the Ext. M/8 found it is evident that that power regarding disciplinary action has been conferred to the Managing Director and Managing Director was emplowered to delegate the same power to any officer of the company and the Managing Director, Mr. R.H. Mody, had delegated the power by executing deed dated 25.11.1976 in favour of General Manager (operation), (Security) and Director of Finance and Accounts and Industrial Relations and they were empowered to suspend an employee from duty, pending inquiry and an employee who has been charged with misconduct and to dismiss an employee in accordance with rule. And in the present case is in hand from perusal of Ext. And in the present case is in hand from perusal of Ext. M, I find that Mr K.K. Mangal General Manager (works)) had issued office order dated 19.9.1991 and appointed Shri Shishir Sinha an Enquiry Officer and also nominated Mr. S. Nath as management representative and thereafter Ext. M/3-b,M/3-c, Ext. M/3- d,M/3-e were issued to the chargesheeted workman intimating the chargesheeted workman to be present in the enquiry and these notices were received by the chargesheeted workman and except the above from perusal of Ext. M/7 it is evident that powers were delegated to the executive of the rank of Chief Electrical Engineer, Chief Mechanical Engineer and equivalent, and heads of the department were also empowered to exercise the above mentioned power including the power to issue chargesheet in the matter of misconduct and to dismiss an employee in accordance with rule and from perusal of Ext. M/1 I find that chargesheet dated 29.8.91 was issued by the Divisional Manager of material handling services department and he was the head of the department and was competent to issue the chargesheet and he was also competent and authorised to issue letter dated 3.6.1992 asking the explanation from the charge-sheeted workman on the proposed punishment and he was also competent to issue letter dated 26.6.92 discharging the service of the charge sheeted Workman……..” 10. Moreover, in departmental proceeding, five witnesses were examined on behalf of the management i.e. witness no. 1, Smt. Soni, who is daughter-in-law of late Budhu, Witness No. 2 - Smt. Sonamayee (real daughter of late Budhu), Witness no. 3 - Ram Dularey, Witness no. 4 - Lakhan and Witness no.5 - Rashraj, and the photograph of Smt. Sonamayee, the daughter of late Budhu was also brought on record. These witnesses had corroborated that the charge sheeted workman is not the real daughter of the ex-workman and her real name is Smt. Shurkuni. 11. In the case of Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. v. Khem Chand, (2006) 6 SCC 325 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, citing its earlier decision in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd., (1973) 1 SCC 813 , observed that once an employer has conducted a proper inquiry and the finding of misconduct is a plausible conclusion based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal does not possess jurisdiction to act as an appellate body over the employer’s decision. of India (P) Ltd., (1973) 1 SCC 813 , observed that once an employer has conducted a proper inquiry and the finding of misconduct is a plausible conclusion based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal does not possess jurisdiction to act as an appellate body over the employer’s decision. Interference is warranted only if the inquiry’s findings are perverse, or if the management is found to have engaged in victimization, unfair labour practices, or acted with mala fide intention. 12. In the instant case, the Labour Court had also affirmed the departmental proceedings as fair and just. Consistent with these principles, this Court concludes that the departmental proceedings in the present matter were conducted fairly and impartially, and the findings arrived at are neither arbitrary nor perverse. 13. The Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Ors. V. Jai Bhagwan, (2011) 6 SCC 376 , and Indian Aluminium Company, Ltd. v. Labour Court, (1990) SCC Online Pat 354, in respect to the requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness. Its direct relevance to the present facts is limited. In the instant case, as detailed in the impugned Award, the Labour Court has specifically found that the Enquiry Officer followed due procedure and that the Divisional Manager was competent to initiate disciplinary action under the company’s standing orders. The Labour Court’s findings are based on detailed evidence and analysis, and the procedural steps taken by the management were found to satisfy the principles of natural justice in the given circumstances. 14. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court and as such the writ petition is dismissed. Pending I.A if any also stands disposed of.