Order : (D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.) A.Case of the Workmen : 2. The Workman who was originally the petitioner in W.P.No.8660 of 2005 viz., N.Radhakrishnan had since died pending the Writ Petition, his legal heirs are substituted as petitioners 2 to 4. The said Radhakrishnan was working as Sub-Accountant in the 2 respondent Management viz., the Madras Purasawalkam nd Hindu Janopakara Saswatha Nidhi Ltd. 2.1. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.12173 of 2005 viz., Devaraj was working as Shroff in the same Management. While so, charges were levelled against the Workman – R.Devaraj , Shroff, M.Viswamoorthy , Senior Assistant /Cashier, N.Radhakrishnan , Sub-Accountant and V.Kumar , Office Boy. 2.2. It is alleged that all four of them were involved in certain omissions and commissions by which they caused wrongful loss to the Society and also colluded and indulged in misappropriation of the funds of the Society. Ultimately, all four of them were dismissed from service. The present two Workmen raised a dispute and the conciliation failed. The claims filed by N. Radhakrishnan was taken on file as I.D.No.302 of 1994. Similarly, the claim filed by the said Devaraj was taken on file as I.D.No.658 of 1994. B. Proceedings before the Labour Court: 3. The claims were resisted by the Management by filing counter statements. The Labour Court proceeded with the enquiry. The Workman – Radhakrishnan examined himself as W.W.1 and Exs.W.1 to W.19 were marked. While there was no evidence on behalf of the Management, Exs.M.1 to M.163 were marked. 3.1. In I.D.No.658 of 1994, the Workman examined himself as W.W.1 and Exs.W.1 to W.3 were marked. While there was no oral evidence on behalf of the Management, Exs.M.1 to M.71 were marked. C. Findings of the Labour Court: 4. Since a detailed domestic enquiry was conducted, procedural fairness was not imputed and therefore, the only question before the Labour Court was to consider the issue in the exercise of its power under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, that is, whether the non-employment of these Workman is justified or not. The Labour Court independently considered the evidence in respect of each of the Workmen and concluded that there is enough and sufficient evidence available against the Workmen regarding the misappropriation of funds of the Society. Further, it is considered that the charge is serious. There was also a loss to the Society. The Labour Court independently considered the evidence in respect of each of the Workmen and concluded that there is enough and sufficient evidence available against the Workmen regarding the misappropriation of funds of the Society. Further, it is considered that the charge is serious. There was also a loss to the Society. Hence, separate awards were passed in each of the cases, rejecting the claim of the Workmen and holding that the non-employment of the Workmen had been justified and that the Workmen were not entitled to any relief. D. The Submissions: 5. Heard, Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Workmen and Mr. P. Raghunathan , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management. 5.1. Mr. K.M. Ramesh , the learned counsel would take this Court through the cross-examination of the Management witness by the Workman – Radhakrishnan , would submit that the entire evidence of the Management witness was evasive. Initially, no specific duties were allotted in respect of the Workman – Radhakrishnan , who is only a Sub-Accountant. Admittedly, it is the Visakamoorthy , who misappropriated the amount. As far as the duties of Radhakrishnan are concerned, he performed the same with an unblemished record and there was no commission or omission on his part. Without any specific finding or evidence, the domestic enquiry officer merely beat around the bush and held that the workman was found guilty mainly on the ground that had he been more vigilant while reconciling the accounts, he would have unearthed the fraud committed by the Chief Cashier – Visakamoorthy . Therefore, when there is no evidence of any financial benefit received in respect of misappropriation, and when the Society failed to provide concrete evidence to prove that it was only Radhakrishnan who authorized the representation of the dishonoured cheques, and it is not even the case of the Society that the petitioner was solely responsible for making the debit entries in the concerned register, the findings are nothing but perverse findings with no evidence to support the submission. 5.2. The learned counsel would rely upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Workmen of Engine Valves Ltd., Madras Vs. Engine Valves Ltd., Madras and another, (1983) 2 LLN 198. 5.2. The learned counsel would rely upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Workmen of Engine Valves Ltd., Madras Vs. Engine Valves Ltd., Madras and another, (1983) 2 LLN 198. more specifically relying upon paragraph No.32, he would submit that the very purpose of the Labour Court, being vested with the power under Section 11 A of the Act is to reappraise the evidence and to meticulously consider the evidence, as many a times, the findings in the domestic enquiry would be with arbitrariness, unreasonable attitude and unfair approach towards the Workman and it is only to safeguard these vital interests of the weaker sections of the society, the power under Section 11 A of the Act was vested in the Labour Court. Therefore, the Labour Court ought to have appraised the evidence by itself in detail. 5.3. In this case, the Labour Court again committed a fallacy of going by the findings in the domestic enquiry, without pinpointing as to what is the charge and what is the evidence and how the act of misconduct is committed by theWorkman. The learned counsel would also rely upon the Judgment in Mavji C.Lakum Vs. Central Bank of India , (2008) 12 SCC 726 more specifically in paragraph No.23 to insist upon the nature of power of the Tribunal under Section 11 A of the Act and the manner in which it has to be exercised. Therefore, this Court should interfere and grant the relief to the Workman. 5.4. Per contra, Mr. P. Raghunathan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Society would take this Court through the findings of the enquiry officer in both the matters. He would submit that the enquiry officer has meticulously analysed the voluminous evidence on record and has found that the charges are proved by adducing proper reasons. The said reasons are specifically not assailed. Relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management of Usha Breco Limited and another , (2008) 5 SCC 554 more specifically relying upon paragraphs Nos.31 to 34, the learned counsel would submit that unless the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse, the Labour Court need not interfere merely because two views are possible. Further, the standard of proof is only to the level of preponderance of probability. Further, the standard of proof is only to the level of preponderance of probability. Therefore, the failure to establish the charges in the criminal case or merely because the Civil Suit was not prosecuted properly, will not come in the way of the Society pursuing the disciplinary action and these two Workmen have rightly been dismissed from service. He would also further submit that the Society has also run into financial difficulty and all its activities are closed for all practical purposes except the process of recovering the balance outstanding amount through the Court-appointed Administrator is only under process. 5.5. I have considered the rival submissions on merits. E.Findings in respect of Radhakrishnan: 6. The records in respect of I.D.No.658 of 1994 are available and are perused. Incidentally, the charges are identical in both matters. As far as I.D.No.302 of 1994 is concerned, except the original award, it is stated that the other records are destroyed, vide notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.11 A, Part VI, Section 1 dated 13.03.2024. However, both sides learned counsel have filed certain records in the form of the type set of papers and the correctness of the records is not disputed by the learned counsel on either side. 6.1. Firstly, as far as the case of Mr. N. Radhakrishnan is concerned, he was issued with three charge memorandum. Originally by a charge memorandum dated17.08.1992. One charge was levelled against him which reads as follows:- “That you, Thiru. N. Radhakrishnan, Sub-Accountant in conspiracy with Sri. M. Visagamoorthy, Senior Assistant – Cashier, Sri. R. Devaraj, Shroff and Thiru. V. Kumar, Office-Boy acted dishonestly in connection with the Employer’s business and property and failed to discharge your duties as Sub-Accountant in the subject matter of dishonoured cheques by deliberately concealing and keeping them unaccounted for, and also for arranging to re-present without authority of the management dishonoured cheques returned with Bank’s remarks “want of funds”/”Refer to Drawer” in flagrant violation or Banking customs and practice of the Nidhi. Further you unlawfully destroyed the evidence of dishonoured cheques and deliberately failed to record the dishonourmant of the cheques and to make necessary entries in the Nidhi’s books, thereby facilitating fraudulent removal of funds by Sri. M. Visagamoorthy, Senior Assistant-Cashier.” 6.2. Further you unlawfully destroyed the evidence of dishonoured cheques and deliberately failed to record the dishonourmant of the cheques and to make necessary entries in the Nidhi’s books, thereby facilitating fraudulent removal of funds by Sri. M. Visagamoorthy, Senior Assistant-Cashier.” 6.2. Thereafter, an additional charge memorandum was issued on24.11.1992, in which the following additional charge was levelled against the said Radhakrishnan:- “That you, Thiru.N. Radhakrishnan, Sub-Accountant (Under suspension) in conspiracy with Thiru.M.Visagamurthy, Senior Assistant-cashier, (UNDER suspension) and Thiru.R.Devaraj, Shroff (UNDER suspension) had acted dishonestly in connection with the Employer’s business and property causing pecuniary loss to the Nidhi and failed to discharge his duties as Sub-Accountant in the subject matter of dishonoured Cheques by deliberately Concealing and keeping them unaccounted for and also for arranging to re-present without Authority the dishonoured Cheques returned with Bank’s remarks “want of fund”/ “Refer to Drawer”. Further you unlawfully destroyed the evidence records and deliberately failed to record the dishonourment of the Cheques and to make necessary entries in the Nidhi’s books, thereby facilitating fraudulent misappropriation of funds by Thiru.M.Visagamurthy, Senior Assistant-Cashier and Thiru.R.Devaraj, Shroff.” 6.3. Again yet another charge memorandum dated 04.01.1993 was issued, which contain the following charges:- “In furtherance to the charge Memos cited, Thiru N.Radhakrishnan, Sub-Accountant (under suspension) hereby informed that he did not make entries in the Books of Nidhi nor any arrangements for passing entries in the Accounts of the customer for the dishonoured (1) Cheque No.207069 dt. 20.11.90 for %.10,000/- which was returned by UCO Bank Purasawalkam and brought by Thiru R. Devaraj, Shroff (2) Cheque No.542462 dt. 27.11.90 for .12,000/- and (3) Cheque No. 542463 dt. 27.11.90 for . 14,000/- both of them returned by UCO Bank and brought by the Office-boy ThiruV.Kumar. All the above three charges were represented subsequently without authority. Thiru N. Radhakrishnan, Sub- Accountant has no authority to allow any employee to re-present the dishonoured cheques. The aforesaid cheques were among the number of cheques utilised by the Senior-Assistant-Cashier, Thiru M. Visagamurthy in connivance with ThiruR.Ramakrishnan in defrauding the Nidhi during the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. All the above shows that Thiru N. Radhakrishnan, Sub-Accountant has colluded with Thiruvalargal M. Visagamurthy, R. Devaraj and V.Kumar in addition to the other incidents enumerated in the charge memo and Additional Charge Memo under reference cited.” 6.4. All the above shows that Thiru N. Radhakrishnan, Sub-Accountant has colluded with Thiruvalargal M. Visagamurthy, R. Devaraj and V.Kumar in addition to the other incidents enumerated in the charge memo and Additional Charge Memo under reference cited.” 6.4. He submitted a detailed explanation and thereafter one D.C.Pandian, a learned Advocate was appointed as an enquiry officer. In the enquiry, one Govindaraj was examined as the Management side witness and 143 documents were marked. The delinquent was also given the assistance of a co-worker as well as permitted to engage a lawyer to assist him in the enquiry. In the enquiry, 2 exhibits were also marked by the delinquent. The enquiry officer submitted a report. The enquiry report contains the charges, detailed recitation of the evidence of M.W.1 and the documents and it considers the explanation and the final written statement of the delinquent etc, in paragraph Nos.1 to 55. 6.5. In paragraph No.56, the domestic enquiry officer considered the fact that the Society produced witnesses and marked documents, while the Workman made allegations, no evidence was produced by him to impeach the credit of the Society's witness. In paragraph No.57, the enquiry authority dealt with the objections as to the marking of many of the documents and overruled the objections in paragraphs Nos.57 (i) to 57 (iv) of the enquiry report. Thereafter, in paragraph No.58, the domestic enquiry officer considered whether the charges were proved or not and detailed reasons are given from paragraph No.58 (i) to 58 (xii) to hold that the Workman was guilty of charges. The domestic enquiry officer considered the submission with reference to the allocation of duties and responsibilities and found that at least in the oral evidence the Society's witness has stated what are the duties. Therefore, it is found that even considering the explanation of the Workman that he carried out the other duties, making the entries regarding the returned cheques was not at all his duty, still once the credit is given to the customer account by showing the cheque and subsequently, the cheque gets dishonoured, if the reverse entry is not made by debiting from the account, certainly there is bound to be difference in the bank balance of the Society and this should be easily known to the Workman, while performing his duty. 6.6. Secondly, the enquiry officer believed that the returned cheques were placed on the petitioner's table only. 6.6. Secondly, the enquiry officer believed that the returned cheques were placed on the petitioner's table only. Thirdly, he found that if the Workman sent the returned cheques to the concerned section and if there was no reversal entry in a reasonable time, it is for him to locate the item that caused the disagreement. Thereafter, the domestic enquiry officer considered M.55, a cheque for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and found that even though he made a hint on top of the Ex.M.55, he did not bring it to the notice of the Society by its reconciliation and concluded that therefore, he is in collusion with Visagamoorthy and Kumar for misappropriation of Rs.40,000/-. 6.7. The enquiry officer thereafter considered Ex.M.32, which was a cheque for a sum of Rs.45,000/- and the hint made by the Workman 'REP', thereby it means as if the cheque was represented, while the cheque was not at all represented and thus diverting the attention of the auditors. The enquiry officer specifically considered that the delinquent has not shown the difference of Rs.45,000/- which stood as debit as of 25.07.1991 and was rectified by his reconciliation. Similarly, the amount in M.36 – cheque for Rs.30,000/-, M.40 – for Rs.70,000/-, and M.44 – for Rs.60,000/- were considered. When the Cashier deliberately inserted those cheques, issued by Ramakrishnan , in the cash scrolls, while the Workman entered the figure in the reconciliation register in September 1991 in the next month's register, the entry simply disappeared. All these actions were held to be revealing the collusion with Cashier–Visagamoorthy and others. 6.8. Similar instances concerning cheque dated 21.05.1992 for a sum of Rs.56,000/-, Cheque No.189469 dated 04.06.1992 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- were also considered. It was found that with reference to two more bogus cheques of Ramakrishnan dated 14.07.1992 for Rs.30,000/- and 18.07.1992 for Rs.30,000/- the Workman did not even take necessary action for bringing them even in the reconciliation register. Thereafter, the enquiry officer considered that the delinquent did not arrange for the entries of the cheque that was returned, however, allowed by the other co-delinquent – Devaraj to represent the cheque dated 26.11.1990 in Ex.M.88 without any authority. The enquiry officer by going through the entries written by hand of the Workman had found that the delinquent had shown interest with reference to the Ramakrishnan's cheques alone. 6.9. The enquiry officer by going through the entries written by hand of the Workman had found that the delinquent had shown interest with reference to the Ramakrishnan's cheques alone. 6.9. Similarly, the issue concerning the bogus cheque dated 30.10.1990, is considered. While the workman received two cheques in single debit advice, he made an entry relating to only one cheque of the genuine transaction, leaving the bogus cheque entirely out of the purview of the cheque return register. The bogus cheque was again represented by the said Devaraj . It is found that his involvement is explicitly made out in the other cheque of Ramakrishnan for Rs.15,000/- which was also collected and represented by Devaraj as per Exs.M.114 and 115, without arranging for the books of the Society. The enquiry officer found that seven dishonoured cheques were collected by the said V.Kumar, Office boy, Devaraja , Shroff, Visagamoorthy, Senior Assistant Cashier, and they were not even kept in the office. Therefore, the enquiry officer held that the Management had produced sufficient evidence to prove the charges and held that the charges against the said Workman – Radhakrishnan as proved. 6.10. On the basis of the findings in the domestic enquiry, a second show cause notice was issued and the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. The Labour Court by its award dated 23.07.2004 re-appreciated the entire evidence in paragraphs No.9 to 19 of the Award. The Labour Court took into consideration that when the Workman examined himself before the Labour Court, in the cross-examination, his works as sub–accountant were elicited. The Labour Court further concluded that the Workman must make an entry in the relevant registers regarding the returned cheque. The Labour Court concluded that the charges are not vague and are specific. 6.11. The Labour Court specifically considered the Exhibits M.19, 20, 21, 23 and 161 to find that a cheque dated 11.03.1991 was presented by the staff of the Society and the cheque was returned on 14.09.1991 as per the cheque return register. The documents reveal that the dishonoured cheque was received by Devaraj and the UCO Bank account entry shows that the bank had paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- as per Exs.M.23 and 161. Similarly, it considered that the cheque dated 20.05.1991 and the cheque amount which was mentioned therein were unauthorisedly realised on 18.07.1991. The documents reveal that the dishonoured cheque was received by Devaraj and the UCO Bank account entry shows that the bank had paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- as per Exs.M.23 and 161. Similarly, it considered that the cheque dated 20.05.1991 and the cheque amount which was mentioned therein were unauthorisedly realised on 18.07.1991. In paragraph No.13, it was found that for the same amount a cheque dated 14.07.1992 a sum of Rs.30,000/-, in paragraph No.14, it was found that a cheque dated 06.06.1992, in paragraph No.15, it considered the Exhibits M.36 and M.74, and held that the value of the dishonoured cheque was received by Kumar amounting to Rs.40,000/-. Thereafter, it considered the role played by Devaraj and Visagamoorthy , who were the petitioners in the connected industrial dispute. 6.12. The Labour Court held that through Exs.M.61, 66, 67, 68, 69, 92, 93, 95 and 96 which reveals that the amounts were misappropriated by these Workmen by colluding with each other. In paragraph No.19 the Labour Court found that the Exs.M128 to 159 reveals that various amounts were misappropriated by the said Visagamoorthy . Therefore, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was enough and sufficient evidence against the petitioner and since the charges were serious in nature, the Workman was not entitled to any relief. 6.13. With reference to the bogus cheques that are used to misappropriate the Society's money, the following questions were put by the Workman and the same are extracted hereunder:- 6.14. Therefore, even though in this case, there is no direct evidence concerning Workman – Radhakrishnan , being the beneficiary of misappropriated money, when the charge is that all four employees colluded with each other and indulged in the transactions, at least there is evidence that the Workman – Radhakrishnan was only in-charge of the reconciliation of the accounts periodically. He also must make the reversal entries upon the returned cheques being handed over to him. If it is his case that the cheques were never handed over by the said Visagamoorthy and Kumar , to him then as rightly concluded by the enquiry authority, at least the difference in the amount would have been categorically known during the reconciliation. Therefore, this cannot be said to be a case of oversight or the allegation was made against the petitioner without any evidence. Therefore, this cannot be said to be a case of oversight or the allegation was made against the petitioner without any evidence. The only possible conclusion that can be reached is that the petitioner was also a participant in the entire episode. Therefore, when the charge is serious and when the domestic enquiry authority has threadbare analysed the evidence in detail in very many paragraphs and rendered its findings and thereafter the Labour Court adverted to many of the Exhibits and found that all four employees have indulged in several omissions and commissions, it cannot be said that this is a case where perverse finding is made or that the Labour Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction. When the enquiry authority has come to a conclusion based on some evidence on record and when the Labour Court on reappraisal also accepted the same, this is not a fit case for this Court to interfere in the matter. Findings in respect of Devaraj: 7. Similarly, in the case of Devaraj , the Workman involved in I.D.No.658 of1994, he was also involved in the same transaction. He denied the charges. During the domestic enquiry, one W.Govindaraj was examined as the Management side witness and Exhibits M.1 to M.142 were marked. The Management witness was cross-examined by the Workman and he had the assistance of the co-worker as well as his advocate. The domestic enquiry authority considered the evidence of the Society against the said Devaraj and the various documentary evidence in detail. 7.1. Thereafter, one Pitchumani and K.R. Swaminathan were examined as defence witnesses 1 and 2. In the final written statement of defence, it is the case of the Workman - Devaraj that the entire episode of misappropriation during 1990 to 1992 was only due to non – maintenance of the bank reconciliation register, which was supposed to be done by the aforesaid mentioned N.Radhakrishnan. 7.2. It is the specific case of the said Devaraj that as far as representation of the cheques is concerned he did the same, only on the instructions of his superiors viz., Radhakrishnan , Sub-Accountant and Visagamoorthy , Cashier. Thereafter, in paragraph No.64, the findings are given. In paragraphs Nos.64 (i) to 64 (13), the enquiry authority considered the allegations against Devaraj and the evidence on record. Thereafter, additional charges were also levelled against him which are similar to that of N.Radhakrishnan. Thereafter, in paragraph No.64, the findings are given. In paragraphs Nos.64 (i) to 64 (13), the enquiry authority considered the allegations against Devaraj and the evidence on record. Thereafter, additional charges were also levelled against him which are similar to that of N.Radhakrishnan. N. Devaraj was also levelled similar charges by charge memoranda dated 17.08.1992, 09.11.1992 and 14.11.1992. 7.3. With respect to Devaraj also, the enquiry authority went into detail concerning every transaction and found that on account of allegations and counter- allegations, the vicious circle of collusion between the four officials is eminent. Specific findings were made about the various cheques represented by Devaraj himself such as Ex.M.11 etc.,. The said Devaraj himself had inserted while he was on the cash counter in Ex.M.13 - one of Ramakrishnan's cheques and removed cash of Rs.25,000/- by giving a false account. The cheque was remitted by him in UCO Bank and in the remittance challan in Ex.M.31, he wrote the false account number. Ex.M.32 cancels the very statement as the same belong to one Gopal Naidu and not Ramakrishnan . Thus, the enquiry authority found that the said Devaraj to Ramakrishnan were directly linked to the fraud. The enquiry authority thereafter considered the second additional charge whereunder while acting as Cashier on 30.01.1990, he received cash from the last four customers of the day, in all totalling to Rs.4,392.50/- and he inserted a cheque No.552262 dated 03.01.1990 for Rs.4,392.50/-, again issued by the said Ramakrishnan and removed the cash from the base collection. The account of the delinquent in remitting the cheque without knowing the account number about Ex.M.49 – Cheque and that it was represented unauthorisedly by the delinquent is also considered. 7.4. Similarly, concerning Cheque Nos. 531884 and 624759, it was found that they were issued under a single advice in Ex. M.59, with the genuine transaction noted, while the fraudulent cheque was omitted without any entry. Thus, the enquiry authority categorically found that the Workman – Devaraj was actively involved in the entire episode and held that the charges are proven. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued and ultimately, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. The Labour Court once again considered the matter in detail. Thus, the enquiry authority categorically found that the Workman – Devaraj was actively involved in the entire episode and held that the charges are proven. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued and ultimately, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. The Labour Court once again considered the matter in detail. As the only question was about whether there was any evidence to sustain the charge and regarding the justifiability of the punishment, the Labour Court considered the admission of the petitioner during the cross- examination that he had no authority to represent the dishonoured cheque. It was not even his duty as Shroff to represent the cheques. The charges of misappropriation as well as collusion were categorically proved by the documents. When the petitioner himself admitted that at least three returned cheques were represented by him and that no loss was caused by the petitioner or others, the Labour Court also held that the misconduct was proven and that there is evidence on record. The Discussion and Result: 8. I have also considered the evidence in detail. Admittedly, the petitioner represented the cheques. The petitioner is indeed blaming only the Radhakrishnan for not maintaining the reconciliation register properly. But it can be seen that it is the specific evidence which was let in by the Management that when the petitioner was on duty as a Cashier on 30.01.1990, he made a note in the cash scroll for the receipt of a sum of Rs.4,329.50/- when the exact amount was received by him by the last four customers, the very action of inserting a cheque for the very same amount in the name of Ramakrishnan shows the active involvement of the petitioner in the entire episode. The said cash scroll was marked as Ex.M.55 before the Labour Court. When the receipt of the amount initiated by the petitioner has been marked as Ex.M.46 and 47, the receipts of the amounts from Thirupurasundari , Mahadevan, Sankaralingam and Munusamy whereby he had made an entry of a receipt of a cheque for a sum of Rs.4,392.50/-. His explanation that he never received the said cash amount stands disproved. There is also other overwhelming evidence to prove his direct involvement in the episode and that he is in collusion with others. His explanation that he never received the said cash amount stands disproved. There is also other overwhelming evidence to prove his direct involvement in the episode and that he is in collusion with others. In view thereof, when the domestic enquiry authority has found that the charges are proved based on the evidence and analysis of the evidence on record and when the Labour Court has re-appreciated the evidence and found that the charges are proved and since the proven charges relate to misappropriation, falsification of accounts etc., the Labour Court has concluded that the punishment of dismissal is justified, the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 8.1. Accordingly, finding no merits, both the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs.