ORDER : Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. This petition is by the workman. The petitioner is assailing the award rejecting the Reference No.56/2011, under Section 10 (1)(C) and (D) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act of 1947') upholding the penalty of dismissal imposed by the respondent - employer/ Company. 2. The facts borne out from the records would reveal that on 13.05.1997, the petitioner joined the respondent - Company as a Medical Representative. Alleging certain misconducts on the part of the petitioner, respondent - Company on 24.12.2002, issued charge sheet to the petitioner. On 02.01.2003, petitioner replied to the charge sheet denying the charges. On 30.01.2003, respondent - Company initiated domestic enquiry. 3. During the pendency of enquiry, one more charge sheet dated 22.04.2003 was issued. Later, in terms of the order dated 22.06.2004, the enquiry officer found that all the charges against the petitioner are proved. The petitioner responded to 2 nd show cause notice and disputed the findings of the enquiry officer. The respondent - Company terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 21.07.2004. 4. The Labour Court in Bengaluru upheld the fairness of domestic enquiry and parties were given opportunity to lead evidence on the alleged plea of victimization. Thereafter, the Labour Court rejected the Reference on the premise that the charges are proved and the penalty of dismissal is justified. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the domestic enquiry was conducted in Mumbai. The petitioner was employed in Gulbarga. The travelling allowance and dearness allowance were not paid as such the petitioner could not participate in the domestic enquiry on all hearing dates. Though he participated initially, later for want of financial difficulty and not paying the allowance, he could not defend himself by leading evidence before the Enquiry Officer in Mumbai. Thus, he would urge that entire domestic enquiry vitiated. 6. In addition, it is also urged that the charges levelled against the petitioner are vague and the necessary particulars are not spelt out and for this reason, the petitioner could not effectively defend the vague charges. Thus, it is urged that the domestic enquiry is vitiated. 7. Thus, he would urge that entire domestic enquiry vitiated. 6. In addition, it is also urged that the charges levelled against the petitioner are vague and the necessary particulars are not spelt out and for this reason, the petitioner could not effectively defend the vague charges. Thus, it is urged that the domestic enquiry is vitiated. 7. It is further urged that the documents to substantiate the vague charges levelled against the petitioner are also not furnished by the respondent - Company and assuming that the charges are specific and understood by the petitioner, then also there are no materials on record to hold that the charges are proved. 8. In the alternative, it is submitted that the misconducts alleged to have been proved do not warrant penalty of dismissal and the penalty is shockingly disproportionate and the Labour Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act of 1947. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent- Company on the other hand would submit that the domestic enquiry was held to be proper by the Labour Court and the said order is not called in question by the petitioner and the petitioner did not lead evidence before the enquiry officer to substantiate his claim and there is no provision which mandates payment of travelling allowance and dearness allowance to the delinquent employee to enable him to participate in the disciplinary proceeding and even on victimization, no evidence is led to show that the Company has victimized the petitioner and the penalty of dismissal which is imposed is proportionate to the misconducts alleged. All the charges against the petitioner are duly established and given the nature of employment and the responsibility the petitioner expected to do, the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious and no case is made out to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11A and D of the Act of 1947. 10. In addition to that it is also urged that the scope of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and no ground is made out to hold that the impugned award is perverse or without evidence and the scope is only to consider decision making process and not to consider the correctness of the decisions. 11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 12. 11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 12. The charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 24.12.2002 contains eight charges. The respondent - Company, also specified 5 misconducts under the service condition applicable to the petitioner. Eight charges referred to in the charge sheet are alleged to be vague and not containing necessary particulars to enable the petitioner to raise an appropriate defence. This Court has perused those eight charges found in Annexure-D. The first charge is relating to the incident said to have taken place on 01.10.2002 and 02.10.2002, where the petitioner did not report to duty with the area Manager and the petitioner has not ensured the availability of new products in many of the leading retailers in the area and that petitioner has not visited 10 potential Doctors despite repeated reminders. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the aforementioned charge would contend that no material is placed on record to show that he was required to join duty on 01.10.2002 and 02.10.2002. It is also urged that the new products referred to in the said charge are not specified and it is further urged that 10 potential Doctors referred in the charge are also not specified. As far as these charges concerned, the petitioner has replied as under: "There was no information or arrangement with the area Manager to do joint work on 01.10.2002 and 02.10.2002, inspite of this we worked together." Thereafter he states as under: "new products available with the retailer at necessary points. Since we are talking about new products, sometimes it becomes difficult to stock the same in all the shops as the products will not be known to the chemists before the launch. The chemists take some time to stock new products as they want to ensure subscription flow for the same." 14. As far as charge relating to 10 potential Doctors, it is replied by stating that he has not furnished the address of the said Doctors. The petitioner further claims that he managed to meet five of them and the remaining will be traced and met in due course. 15. The respondent - Company to substantiate the charges has led evidence by two witnesses. 16. It is noticed that the Labour Court has framed an issue relating to the fairness of the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent-Company. 15. The respondent - Company to substantiate the charges has led evidence by two witnesses. 16. It is noticed that the Labour Court has framed an issue relating to the fairness of the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent-Company. While recording the finding on the said issue, the Labour Court has noticed that fair opportunity was given to the delinquent employee while conducting enquiry. And after noticing the fact that despite sufficient opportunity being given to the delinquent employee, the workman has not availed the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent – Company, the Labour Court has concluded that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. 17. In the evidence that has been led before the Court, it is noticed that the respondent - Company has made a claim that it will pay 2 nd class train fare and other applicable expenses provided, same is supported by vouchers and tickets. In other words, the respondent - Company is admitting that the petitioner was entitled to 2 nd Class train fare and the accommodation expenses as per the applicable rules. 18. It is also noticed that while recording the finding on the issue relating to the fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court has not recorded any finding as to whether the conclusion by the enquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of charges is based on the acceptable material. That question was not decided. At that stage, it was not required also. The Labour Court has only held that the enquiry was fair and proper. 19. Later both parties were permitted to lead evidence on the alleged victimization plea raised by the workman. While recording the finding on the said issue relating to the victimization, the Labour Court has said that the materials are not placed to hold that the workman is not victimized by imposing penalty of dismissal from service. 20. It is required to be noticed that while passing the impugned award, the Labour Court has not given a finding as to whether the charges against the petitioner in terms of the first charge sheet are proved. No reference is made to any of the documents produced by the workman while holding that the charges are proved. 20. It is required to be noticed that while passing the impugned award, the Labour Court has not given a finding as to whether the charges against the petitioner in terms of the first charge sheet are proved. No reference is made to any of the documents produced by the workman while holding that the charges are proved. In the impugned award the Labour Court has only focused its attention to find out as to whether the penalty of dismissal from service amounts to victimization in the light of evidence led by the workman before the Labour Court. Hardly any consideration on the evidence led by the workman in the form of cross- examination to the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent - Company to find out as to whether any charges are proved or not. 21. It is also required to be noticed that there are 8 distinct charges and the workman has given reply by making a reference of all eight distinct charges under first charge sheet dated 24.12.2002. This Court is of the view that the award passed by the Labour Court dismissing the Reference without giving any positive finding on the charges of alleged misconduct without referring to any of the defence taken by the workman in the cross-examination of witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent - Company is not sustainable. 22. The charges in second charge sheet dated 22.04.2003 are as under: i) Fraud or dishonestly in connection with the employer’s business; ii) Commission of any acts subversive of discipline or good behavior on the premises of the establishment; iii) Violation of terms and condition and breach of trust of the contract employment; 23. After going through the aforementioned charges, it is noticed that the said charges do not refer to any specific incidents. From the tenor of the charges, one can conclude that the charges framed in 2 nd charge sheet dated 22.04.2003 are the charges which are dependent on the proof of charges referred to in the earlier charge sheet dated 24.12.2002. When that is the position, the finding of guilty on charges in 2 nd charge sheet has to be dependent on the finding on the charges framed on 24.12.2002. 24. When that is the position, the finding of guilty on charges in 2 nd charge sheet has to be dependent on the finding on the charges framed on 24.12.2002. 24. This Court has noticed that while passing the award on the charges dated 24.12.2002, the Labour Court either while considering the preliminary issue relating to fairness of the domestic enquiry or while considering the plea relating to victimization has not considered as to whether charges are proved or not. 25. It is also noticed that as far as 2 nd charge sheet is concerned, the petitioner has replied denying the charges. However, on the charges alleged in 2 nd charge sheet, though the respondent - Company has led evidence and the petitioner workman has not led any evidence. Even assuming that charges in 2 nd charge sheet are proved, then also the Labour Court is required to consider whether the charges levelled in 2 nd charge sheet attract the penalty of dismissal from services or is it disproportionate to the misconduct alleged in 2 nd charge sheet. 26. From the tenor of the award passed by the Labour Court, it is evident that the Labour Court proceeded under the presumption that the charges in both charge sheets are proved. Thus, the finding on the proportionality of the punishment is on the assumption that charges in both charge sheets are proved. As already noticed, the charges in first charge sheet are held to be proved without reference to the cross examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner as well as the documents produced by the petitioner. Thus, the decision making process is vitiated. 27. In the light of the aforementioned finding, this Court is of the view that this Court has to interfere in the award passed by the Labour Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India as the Labour Court has failed to apply its mind to the contention raised by the petitioner in the cross-examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner. To that extent the impugned award is contrary to law. 28. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part (ii) The impugned award dated 15.02.2014 in Reference No.56/2011, on the file of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bangalore is set aside. To that extent the impugned award is contrary to law. 28. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part (ii) The impugned award dated 15.02.2014 in Reference No.56/2011, on the file of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bangalore is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Labour Court, Bengaluru to reconsider the matter afresh based on the evidence already recorded keeping in mind the observations made above. (iv) The parties shall appear before the Labour Court, Bengaluru on 18.08.2025 (v) Registry to return the Trial Court Records to the Labour Court, Bengaluru forthwith.