1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9030 OF 2007 Mr. Babasaheb Bhima Kumbhar. ... Petitioner. V/s. Narwad Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Narwad. ... Respondent. ..... Mr. Suresh S. Pakale for the Petitioner. Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J. 08TH APRIL 2008. P.C. :- The Petitioner was employed as a Salesman by the Respondent which is a small village level co-operative society. The services of the Petitioner were terminated on the ground of a loss of confidence, originating in a mis-appropriation to the tune of approximately Rs.1.57 lakhs. On 14th September 1990, the Petitioner tendered a written communication confessing to his mis-conduct and assuring that he would make good the amount that was misappropriated. An audit was conducted by the Respondent and the report of the auditor was produced on the record of the proceedings. 2 The auditor gave evidence. The Labour Court held that since no disciplinary enquiry had been held by the Respondent, the evidence which was adduced on behalf of the Respondent in respect of the plea of mis-conduct could not be countenanced. In appeal, the Industrial Court held that in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Engineering Laghu Udyog Employees Union V/s. Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal (2004 II CLR 942), it was open to the employer even if no enquiry had been held, to establish the misconduct by leading evidence before the Industrial Court. On merits, the Industrial Court has held that there was no material to establish the plea that the confessional statement dated 14th September 1990 was given out of coercion. The Industrial Court has considered the evidence of the material witness who deposed on behalf of the Respondent as well as the evidence of the auditor. The Industrial Court noted that the audit report was not disputed and a perusal thereof shows that it was the Petitioner who was guilty of a misappropriation of the funds of the society. The Industrial Court was conscious of the limitation on the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction 3 and came to the conclusion that a fit and proper case had been made out for interference with the order of the Labour Court for the reason that the Labour Court had not given adequate weight to the material evidence on record including the audit report and the evidence of the auditor. One of the witness to who was a Bank Inspector, was an independent witness. On the basis of the preponderating weight of the documentary and oral evidence on record, the Industrial Court was justified in interfering with the order of the Labour Court. On behalf of the Petitioner, it was urged that the Industrial Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence. There is no merit in the submission. The limitations on the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction which is conferred upon the Industrial Court are well settled, but this is not a case where the Industrial Court has substituted findings of facts which appeared to it to be more reasonable with those of the Labour Court. The Labour Court had acted manifestly in disregard of the preponderating weight of the evidence on record. Hence, a fit and proper case was made out for the interference of the Industrial Court. In the present case, as the narration of the facts 4 hereinabove would show the Industrial Court has correctly come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had, as a matter of fact, made a confession of his own involvement on 14th September 1990. Even prior thereto, on 8th September 1990, the Petitioner had accepted that he would be liable for any discrepancy in the matter. The Respondent had instituted a suit against the Petitioner for the recovery of its dues and an award was passed by the Co-operative Court at Sangli on 28th January 2008 decreeing the claim. On the basis of the entire material on the record, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the plea that the confessional statement of the Petitioner was obtained by coercion. These findings are based on evidence. Hence, no case is made out for the interference of this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed.