IN T HIGH COURT OP KAR TAKA AT BARGALE Dated this the 10th August, 1998 PRESEtTT HE H0NBLE Mr R.P.SETHI , CHIF JUSPICE ThE H0NBLE Mr JUSTICE K.R.PRASAL’A RAG 4rit Appeal Nos— 2320 & 2321 of 1998 Between : M/s Vishweswaraiah Iron & Steel Ltd., C A suidary of Steel Authority of India ) Bhadravathi, represented by its Chairman Managing Director, Shimoga District : Appellant common in both A’AS) By Sri B.C. Prabhakar. Advocate ) And: 1. M.Rama Rao,s/o Sri M.ShanKar RaO, CiLCUit House Road,Shimaja 2. Presiding Officer Labour court, Mangalore : Respondents canrion in both dAs) Smt, Sheela Krishnaiah, Advocate,for R.1) ii.A5 filed u/s f the Karnataica High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated l2,2,19d ir 4.P .Nos.7049/90 and 9118/90 :2: rhese appeals coming on for preliminery hearing this day, Chief Justice delivered the following J U D GM N r We have heara the learned counsel for the prti and perused the record. No ground is made out to interferer either with the awaro of the Labour court or the order of the learned single Judge which is based upon roper appreciation of evidence and tne relevant provisions of law holding that the charges framed aairt the respoent—worian were not proved 1 but under the circumstances of the case depriving him 25% of the oac.1ages vide the order impugn in these appeals The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Labour court ws not justified in disturbing the finding of fact arrived at by the Enqii Officer allegedly on the basis of hypothesis and assumed contradictions. tJe do not agree with the suission of the rned counsel in this behalf inasmuth as the Labour court after referring to various circumstances and aspects of t evidence lead in the case concluded : “ For the reasons Stated above, i have come to tne conclusion that the evidice placed during the eruiry is not suffident to me :3: to the conclusion that. the charges levelled agairEt the first party have been proved. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the enquiry Officer are pervei:se. In that view of the matter it must be held that the second party has failed to prove the charqe levelled agaiit the fit party . The finding returned by the Labour Court cannot be termed either to oepervee or bed upon no evidence . Alleged wrong appreciation of evidence cannot be made a basis for disturb ing the findng arrived at by the Labour cc*irt In exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court do not assume the pcier of the appellate court 1e also do not agree with the submission of the 1rried courl for the appellant that in the ci zcums tanc es of the case the Labour cou rt and the learned single Judge were not justified in directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman On proof of the fact that the respondent was not guilty of misconduct, he was entitled to oe rein. — stated as if there did not exist any order of , .4 :4: dismissal against him and entitled to all consequential benefits. H*iever the learned single Judje purportedly in the peculiar facts and circun tances of the case deprived him 25y of backwages regarding which the —workman has not complained and we also confirm the direction of the learned sIrle Judge in this regard No merit. Dismissed I Sd/ Chief Justice Sd/ JUDGE