Dismissal based on no legal evidence is perverse; reinstatement with full back wages follows absent proof of gainful employment.

A dismissal based on findings unsupported by any legal evidence is perverse and vitiated by non-application of mind, so the award sustaining it could not stand. The alleged misconduct of misappropriation, fabricated accounts, bogus cheques and conspiracy was not proved by evidence, and the employee's failure to keep a private cheque book locked did not by itself establish misconduct. Once the dismissal was set aside, reinstatement followed as the normal relief, and full back wages and consequential benefits were warranted because the employer failed to prove gainful employment during the period of forced unemployment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the award upholding the dismissal could stand where the findings of misconduct were based on no legal evidence and were perverse. (ii) Whether the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.

Issue (i): Whether the award upholding the dismissal could stand where the findings of misconduct were based on no legal evidence and were perverse.

Analysis: The charges of misappropriation, fabrication of accounts, issuance of bogus cheques, and conspiracy with the manager were not supported by any evidence. The only conduct attributed to the workman was that he did not keep his private cheque book under lock and key, but that circumstance by itself did not amount to misconduct or establish any nexus with the alleged fraud. A finding resting on total absence of evidence, or on conjectures and ipse dixit, is perverse and also discloses non-application of mind. Such findings can be interfered with even in supervisory or appellate jurisdiction, and the High Court erred in treating the challenge as a mere request to reappraise evidence.

Conclusion: The findings of misconduct and the award sustaining dismissal were unsustainable and were rightly set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.

Analysis: Once the dismissal was found unlawful and unsupported by evidence, reinstatement followed as the normal relief. The employer failed to prove any gainful employment during the period of forced unemployment. Assisting a father-in-law at a coal depot and living with him for maintenance did not amount to gainful employment so as to deny back wages. In the absence of proof of alternative employment, full back wages and consequential benefits were warranted.

Conclusion: The workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal was held unsustainable, the workman was directed to be restored to service, and full monetary and service benefits followed as a consequence of the unlawful termination.

Ratio Decidendi: A dismissal based on findings that are unsupported by any legal evidence is perverse and vitiated by non-application of mind, and such an order cannot be sustained; on setting it aside, reinstatement with back wages will ordinarily follow unless the employer proves gainful employment or other grounds to deny that relief.

---