JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P16 order passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ID No.7/2013. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that while the petitioner was working as Godown-in-charge in the Head Office of the Andathode Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., he was implicated in the alleged incidents of pledging imitation gold ornaments. It is further contended that the incident occurred at Veliyancode Branch of the Bank situated 10 km away from the Head Office. Consequently, the petitioner was suspended from service on 28.03.1997. However, no subsistence allowance was paid during the period of suspension. Thereafter, Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued. The charges alleged in the memo read as follows: • He entered into criminal conspiracy with the Branch Manager, appraiser and clerk for unlawful gain. • He caused to pledge spurious gold ornaments as real gold in Veliyancode branch by playing fraud and deception, collectively obtained huge amounts unlawfully and illegally. • Many of the pledges were made with the knowledge and instigation of the petitioner that resulted in breach of trust and huge amounts were collected to the detriment of the Bank. • On detecting the criminal activity, he locked the godown and left without opening the A.W.D on 29.03.1997. • He has misappropriated 8 quintal of rice from the stock entrusted to him thereby caused financial loss to the bank. • The acts amount to fraud, cheating and breach of trust. • The aforementioned acts and deals proved that the petitioner is totally unfit to hold any office in the bank. 3. By Ext.P2, the petitioner has preferred his reply to the memo of charges. Thereafter a domestic enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted as per Ext.P3 whereby it is stated that after hearing and considering the entire evidence, it is found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges against him. Thereafter Ext.P4 show cause notice was issued. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5, his reply to the show cause notice. Consequently, he was dismissed from service for the offences committed by him. 4. Thus the issue was referred to the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of a complaint preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter Ext.P4 show cause notice was issued. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5, his reply to the show cause notice. Consequently, he was dismissed from service for the offences committed by him. 4. Thus the issue was referred to the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of a complaint preferred by the petitioner. By Ext.P7, the Industrial Tribunal has found that nothing is wrong in referring the same matter before the Industrial Tribunal as the domestic enquiry held against the workman is not proper, except recording the evidence of witness in the enquiry. Thereafter the award was passed as per Ext.P10 and it was found that the dismissal of the petitioner is justifiable and he is not entitled for any relief. 5. The issue was taken up before this Court in OP No.6561/2002. By judgment dated 26.11.2012, the impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal was upheld. Being aggrieved by the same writ appeal was preferred. By judgment dated 07.03.2013, the award of the Industrial Tribunal was set aside along with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. In the light of the said direction, fresh award has been passed as per Ext.P16. That is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the decision rendered by the Industrial Dispute Court is erroneous, perverse, opposed to the facts, truth and evidence in the case. it is also contended that this is a case of no evidence against the petitioner to prove the vague charges levelled against him. There is no acceptable piece of evidence to substantiate the single transaction in ExtP16 judgment against the petitioner. The conclusion is based on surmises and conjectures, suggestions and suppositions. 6. In response to the contentions in the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is submitted that usual practice in the Veliyankode branch of the bank is to sell gold ornaments which are not redeemed in time and which remains unredeemed even after notices are issued by public auction. An enquiry, which has been conducted with respect to certain gold ornaments which remained unsold, revealed that among the gold ornaments, pledged in Veliyakode branch 139 items of gold ornaments were spurious and an amount of Rs.32,48,150/- was advanced on the security of these spurious ornaments. An enquiry, which has been conducted with respect to certain gold ornaments which remained unsold, revealed that among the gold ornaments, pledged in Veliyakode branch 139 items of gold ornaments were spurious and an amount of Rs.32,48,150/- was advanced on the security of these spurious ornaments. The appraiser had deposed that at the instance of the petitioner and other person this spurious ornaments were caused to be pledged and kept in the bank. This is the circumstance in which disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and he was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the bank had filed arbitration cases against the petitioner and other three persons to realize the loss accrued to the bank. Accordingly, an award was passed in ARC No.41 of 1997 by allowing the bank to realise the amount of Rs.32,48,150/- with interest at the rate 19.5%. The award taken in appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal by the petitioner and other persons, was dismissed. Thereafter, W.P.(C) No.16892 of 2005 was preferred by them. That was also dismissed by judgment dated 26.11.2012. The writ appeal filed challenging the judgment in the writ petition, was disposed of. 7. Along with the counter affidavit, the Society has produced certain documents which draws a line to the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident. 8. Considering the prayers in the writ petition, i.e., to quash Ext.P16 award, the questions to be decided are: (1) whether the writ of certiorari will have to be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction ? (2) whether the writ of certiorari will have to be issued as the Tribunal acted illegally and it is exercised its jurisdiction undoubtedly, i.e., without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard or violative of the principles of natural justice ? and (3) whether the writ of certiorari to be issued in exercise of appellate or supervisory jurisdiction ? 9. The 1 st question to be answered is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is in error or perversive or without any evidence. 10. The issue involved in this case is the pledging of spurious gold ornaments in the bank and the alleged incident stated to be occurred with the aid of the petitioner. The primary lead to the incident has been given by the appraiser as per his statement which is produced as Ext.R2(a). 10. The issue involved in this case is the pledging of spurious gold ornaments in the bank and the alleged incident stated to be occurred with the aid of the petitioner. The primary lead to the incident has been given by the appraiser as per his statement which is produced as Ext.R2(a). Going by the statement, it is submitted by the appraiser that as a temporary arrangement, at the insistence of the branch manager, the petitioner and another employee of the Bank, one Mr.Ashokan, he has signed the necessary documents for completing the pledge. It is also stated that since his superior officer directed, he has no other option. 11. Thereafter, in order to prove the involvement of the petitioner, the bank has produced Ext.R2(b), which is an agreement stated to be executed by the petitioner to one Moidunni on 13.11.1997 indemnifying him against the future damages as a consequence of pledging spurious gold. In another document produced as Ext.R2(c), which is the deposition given by the aforementioned Moidunni, wherein it is stated that the document which is marked as Ext.M7 is an agreement signed by him without even going to the bank, whereby he was indemnified by one of the employees of the bank. In the light of the above document, the discussion with respect to evidence in Ext.P16 was examined. 12. In para 20 of the impugned order, it is stated that there was false loan transactions with spurious gold ornaments in the bank, among them, one transaction was in the name of Moidunni. On these transactions, the Branch Manager Mr.K.Ashokan, the appraiser P.K.Madhavan and clerk Mr.Ashokan and the workman, the petitioner herein are charge sheeted. It is also stated that others were already dismissed from service. 13. The original documents pertaining to the issue is before the Court of Joint Registrars Co-operative Societies, Malappuram. The petitioner herein is also a party to the proceedings. The petitioner has no case that Ext.M7 which is produced along with the counter affidavit as Ext.R2(b) is not the true photostat copy of the original document produced before Court of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Malappuram. The petitioner herein has no sufficient explanation as to why MW2 Moidunni deposed against him. It is also stated that the documents produced through WW2 and WW3 is not acceptable. The petitioner herein has no sufficient explanation as to why MW2 Moidunni deposed against him. It is also stated that the documents produced through WW2 and WW3 is not acceptable. Whereas it is found that Ext.M7 is self explanatory, which contains an unconditional undertaking by the workman that he would indemnify the entire liability in respect of false loan transactions which is a self evident statement (Ext.P16)that the petitioner is involved in the alleged incidents and he has taken the money derived from false transactions. It was also found that the handwriting in Ext.M7 is that of WW2. Therefore, the explanation given by the workman cannot be accepted. 14. It is further stated in paragraph 21 that in the light of the directions by this Court, re-appraisal of the entire evidence recorded by his predecessor and the fresh evidence after the remand has been done. In the light of the same, the role of the petitioner was clear as he had pledged gold ornaments in the name of Mr. Moidunni, which are spurious gold ornaments, in the bank with the help of the appraiser and others and availed money. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the petitioner has executed an agreement in favour of Moidunni to make him silent. The agreement was written by one Shefeeque, who was a witness produced by the petitioner. In the earlier discussions and in the arguments before this Court, it has also come out that the petitioner had entrusted a stamp paper with Shefeeque in order to avail loan from Moidunni. He used to lend money on security. However, due to the faith in Shefeeque, Moidunni didn’t accept the said stamp papers towards the security. However the amount has been given on lent to the petitioner. This fact is admitted by the petitioner, which reveals certain connection between Moidunni, Shefeeque and the petitioner. 15. However, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are with respect to the legal evidences and non legal evidences. However, there is no strict application of the Evidence Act in the case of disciplinary proceedings and the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunals. That aspect need not be considered. Even on accepting that Ext.M7 is an illegal agreement, thereby the petitioner indemnify Moidunni on the alleged losses would have occurred to him due to pledging spurious gold ornaments. However, there is no strict application of the Evidence Act in the case of disciplinary proceedings and the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunals. That aspect need not be considered. Even on accepting that Ext.M7 is an illegal agreement, thereby the petitioner indemnify Moidunni on the alleged losses would have occurred to him due to pledging spurious gold ornaments. But the preponderance of probability of the involvement of the petitioner is revealed from that document, unless and until the petitioner disprove that document. There is no error in considering the same as an evidence. Moreover, the appraiser, who is a co-accused, shafeeq, who is a witness produced by the petitioner, and the Secretary, who is also a co accused in this case, also deposed against the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there is no evidence against him cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found in favour of the petitioner with respect to the loss of rice and non opening of the Godown. 16. In the light of the aforementioned findings, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction on the basis of sufficient evidences. Thereby the award of the Industrial Tribunal cannot be termed as perversive. This position has been supported by a reported decision in General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa and Others v. Sri Giridhari Sahu and others [2019 KHC 6903]. In the absence of any other contentions with respect to the violation of principles of natural justice and beyond the jurisdiction, no interference is warranted. In the light of the said findings, the other decisions brought before this Court by the petitioner with respect to the admissibility of evidences, especially legal evidences, have no relevance. Therefore, the decisions relied on by the petitioner need not be considered. 17. In the light of the aforementioned discussions, the questions raided above is answered negetively. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and dismissed.