ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing and setting aside the award dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 15 of 2010, whereby it was held that the order of dismissal of the original petitioner from the service of M/s Tata Motors Limited was just fair and appropriate which did not require interference. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a criminal case arising out of the same occurrence was also instituted against the original petitioner in which he was subsequently acquitted on 19.04.2018 whereas the impugned order was passed by the learned labour court on 18.12.2017 and hence, acquittal of the original petitioner has a bearing in the present case. 3. It is further submitted that the original petitioner was not solely responsible for putting his signatures on the challan receipts concerning supply of tyres as he had acted on the instructions of his superior. Moreover, it was a general practice to put the receipt signature on the challan without physical examination due to the reason that materials used to be unloaded in different area by the drivers of about 60 trucks (average) everyday which was not possible to check individually. It is also submitted that considering the nature of allegation, the punishment imposed upon the original petitioner is disproportionate to the charges proved. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the original petitioner was charged for the acts of misconduct i.e. “(i) habitual negligence or neglect of duty or work and (ii) deceptive or corrupt practices”. It was alleged that the petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of consignment of tyres on several challans of different dates, however, the same was never physically reported to have been unloaded at the area where it was sent. The details of the challan numbers along with their respective dates were also mentioned in the charge sheet issued to the original petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the preliminary issue regarding fairness of domestic enquiry was decided by a specific order and it was held to be fair and proper. The acquittal of the original petitioner in the criminal case after the passing of the impugned award, has no bearing in the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the preliminary issue regarding fairness of domestic enquiry was decided by a specific order and it was held to be fair and proper. The acquittal of the original petitioner in the criminal case after the passing of the impugned award, has no bearing in the matter. It is further submitted that the nature of allegation and the evidences adduced in the criminal case and the domestic enquiry are different though they arise out of the same incident. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the following judgments on the scope of enquiry before the learned labour court, once the domestic enquiry is held to be fair and proper: (i) The East India Hotels vs. Their Workmen and Others, (1974) 3 SCC 712 (ii) The management of Telco vs. K.C. Bandyopadhyaya, 2018 (1) JCR 159 (Jhr) 7. On the point of quantum of punishment, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there was complete loss of confidence of the management in the original petitioner which has been taken note of in the impugned award and in support of the same following judgments have been relied upon: (iii) Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. M. Mani, (2018) 1 SCC 285 This judgment has been referred to submit that once the confidence is lost, the order of dismissal is justified. On the same line, it has also been referred to the judgment reported in M.Y. Khan Vs. M/s Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. 2009 SCC Online Jhar 660, paragraph 5 (vii). (iv) Raghaw Prasad Shahi Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. 2014 SCC Online Jhar 2689 paragraph 7. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that there is no perversity in the impugned award, and accordingly, the same does not call for any interference under writ jurisdiction. Findings of this Court: 9. The following charges were levelled against the workman: “Charges You are hereby charged with having committed the acts of misconducts as described hereinafter under Works Standing Order No. 24 and more particularly under Sub-Clause of the said Standing Order. Findings of this Court: 9. The following charges were levelled against the workman: “Charges You are hereby charged with having committed the acts of misconducts as described hereinafter under Works Standing Order No. 24 and more particularly under Sub-Clause of the said Standing Order. On the (date and time of incident) when you were on duty/not on duty, you are alleged to have committed the following acts of misconducts: Sub-Clause (iv) “Habitual negligence or neglect of duty or work.” (xv) “Deceptive or corrupt practices” Brief description of the incident corresponding to the acts of misconducts as stated above. It is alleged that you have acknowledged the receipt of the consignment of tyres on Challan but the same have not been physically reported at tyre unloading area. The details mentioned below: Challan No. Challan date Challan No. Challan date 4781 26.06.2006 NSK 17570 29.01.2007 NSK 6126 20.07.2006 NSK 17567 29.01.2007 6066 19.07.2006 NSK 19147 22.02.2007 NSK 1098 11.10.2006 NSK 19150 22.02.2007 NSK 10915 11.10.2006 NSK 19053 21.02.2007 NSK 12118 01.11.2006 NSK 19056 21.02.2007 NSK 12121 01.11.2006 NSK 17358 25.01.2007 It is further alleged that you have repeatedly neglected your duty and indulged in deceptive practices, hence rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action. You are called upon to submit your explanation in writing to the chargesheet on or before the 28.05.2007 showing cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against you under the Works Standing Orders. Please note that you are suspended from duty with immediate effect pending further proceedings, if no explanation is received within the time stipulated, further action as may be appropriate would be taken in the matter.” 10. The enquiry report has been placed on record. On perusal of the enquiry report, it appears that a management witness namely H.P. Choudhary (working as Manager Materials) was examined and the workman/original petitioner, in spite of given opportunity, had declined to cross-examine the said witness. 11. The workman/original petitioner, however, stated that he was a Grade-I employee working as Material Associate and therefore, was discharging the duty of trust and confidence as he was looking after the store management. 11. The workman/original petitioner, however, stated that he was a Grade-I employee working as Material Associate and therefore, was discharging the duty of trust and confidence as he was looking after the store management. The proved misconduct against the workman is that on 11 different dates, he acknowledged the receipts of the consignment of tyres on the challan but did not physically report at the tyre unloading area of the company and therefore, was found guilty of misconduct of habitual negligence or neglect of duty or work and also of deceptive or corrupt practices. 12. During the enquiry, he was finally found guilty of the charges of negligence of duty as well as deceptive or corrupt practices. The learned labour court decided the fairness of the domestic enquiry by a separate order dated 20.07.2013 and it was held that the said enquiry was fair and proper. Having gone through the order dated 20.07.2013, the same is found to be a well-reasoned one. So far as the fairness of domestic enquiry is concerned, no illegality as such has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in course of argument. Perusal of the domestic enquiry report reveals that on the basis of the reply filed by the original petitioner in the domestic inquiry, it was recorded that the original petitioner did not deny his signatures on the challans and admitted that he had merely acknowledged the challans without doing the preliminary checks i.e physically ensuring the unloading of vehicles, thereby neglecting his duty. Further, the natural justice was duly followed while conducting the domestic enquiry. 13. Learned Labour Court finally decided the case within the ambit of Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act and held that the workman was a Material Associate Grade 1 and by virtue of the said post, he was dealing with the materials of the department and was holding a post of trust and confidence. The learned labour court also recorded that the workman was holding a post of trust and confidence, and therefore, the management was justified in dismissing him on the basis of proved misconduct. The finding of the learned labour court recorded in paragraph no. 10 to 12 are as under: “10. The workman was a Material Associate Grade-1 in the Management and therefore, was discharging a duty of trust and confidence as he was looking after the store management. The finding of the learned labour court recorded in paragraph no. 10 to 12 are as under: “10. The workman was a Material Associate Grade-1 in the Management and therefore, was discharging a duty of trust and confidence as he was looking after the store management. The proved misconduct against the workman is that on different 11 dates, he acknowledged the receipts of the consignment of tyres on the challan but did not physically report at the tyre unloading area of the company and therefore, was found guilty of misconduct of habitual negligence or neglect of duty or work and also of deceptive or corrupt practices. 11. Admittedly, the workman was holding a post of trust and confidence as he was involved in the store material dealing and also he has been found guilty of misconduct of moral turpitude involving store materials. This workman has lost the trust and confidence of the management. The management cannot be asked to retain a workman who having a post of trust and confidence has washed away. In no way such a workman be again allowed to make appearance on such floor of work of trust and confidence. It is also well settled that once the workman is found guilty of misconduct of act involving moral turpitude of direct or indirect of financial matter, the managerial action taken for dismissal of such workman orally cannot be disturbed in a judicial proceeding. 12. If I take into the consideration the holistic situation specially the nature of misconduct proved and the punishment awarded to the workman, I find that the managerial action of dismissing the workman from its services does not require any interference and is held to be just fair and appropriate managerial action. In this view of the matter, the court does not feel proper to interfere under the power of court as envisaged under Section 11A of Industrial Dispute Act for interference.” 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that since the original petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 19.04.2018, the order of dismissal is liable to be set-aside and he deserves to be reinstated in service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that since the original petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 19.04.2018, the order of dismissal is liable to be set-aside and he deserves to be reinstated in service. On perusal of the judgment of acquittal, this court finds that the original petitioner was charged for offence under Sections 406, 407, 408, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and two persons faced the trial. In course of trial of the criminal case, the set of witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution was totally different from the set of witnesses produced in the domestic enquiry. The nature of allegation was also different as the petitioner was charged of negligence of duty in the domestic enquiry, whereas the same was not the subject matter of consideration in the criminal trial. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the acquittal of the original petitioner in the criminal case vide judgment dated 19.04.2018 has no bearing in the present case. 16. Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by the learned labour court calling for an interference under writ jurisdiction of this Court. 17. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.