IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36591 of 2008(F) -------------------------- ID.14/2006 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.INDIRA, D/O.SIVARAMA PILLAI, HARISADANAM, POST KAVALAM, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-686 506. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI. 2. THE MANAGER AND INSPECTOR, N.S.SCHOOLS, PERUNNA, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 36591 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th December, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext. P3 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki in I.D. No. 14/2006. The issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether the dismissal of Smt. T. Indira (Clerk, N.S.S. English Medium School, Perunna, Changanassery) by the opposite party is justifiable? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” Since the dismissal of the petitioner was after conducting an enquiry, the Tribunal considered the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary issue and found that the enquiry was conducted validly and properly and that the findings of the enquiry officer are also supported by evidence on record. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the proportionality of punishment. Since the misconduct proved against the petitioner involved misappropriation of huge amounts, the Tribunal found that the punishment of dismissal imposed by the management is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and denied any relief to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner now does not dispute the finding of the Tribunal that the enquiry was conducted in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The only contention raised is regarding the validity of the findings in the enquiry. According to the petitioner, there was no sufficient evidence to find the petitioner guilty of the misconduct. The petitioner would contend that the petitioner is only a Clerk and the Principal also was responsible for the money in question and after issuing a notice to the Principal, further proceedings against the Principal was dropped. 3. I am of opinion that in so far as the Tribunal had found that the petitioner was responsible for the misappropriation involved on that ground that the proceedings against the Principal were dropped, the award can be found to be unsustainable. What the petitioner W.P.C. No. 36591/08. -: 2 :- seeks is a re-appreciation of evidence, which I cannot do in exercise of my powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Unless the findings are so perverse that no reasonable man would come to the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer, this Court cannot interfere with the award. I cannot, by any stretch of imagination, find that the findings arrived at are perverse. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext. P3 award. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.