Industrial misconduct findings upheld where employer could prove dismissal before Tribunal despite a vitiated domestic enquiry.

A Tribunal's award upholding dismissal for proved misconduct was sustained because the management was entitled to justify the termination by leading evidence after the domestic enquiry had been held defective. The Tribunal was found to have assessed the full factual record, rejected the allegation of conspiracy for lack of material, and treated the complainant's evidence as sufficiently reliable despite some inconsistencies, especially in light of the employee's admitted apology. The applicable standard before the industrial adjudicator was preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. In writ jurisdiction, the High Court declined interference because the factual findings were neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's award upholding the petitioner's dismissal for proved misconduct suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference under writ jurisdiction, including on the grounds of alleged inconsistency in the complainant's evidence, alleged conspiracy, and the effect of the earlier finding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated.

Analysis: The Tribunal was found to have considered the entire factual matrix, including the petitioner's defence, and not merely the complainant's allegations in isolation. The alleged conspiracy was rejected for want of supporting material. The complainant's testimony, though containing some inconsistencies and improvements, was held not to be so unreliable as to require rejection in toto, particularly in view of the admitted apology. The fact that the domestic enquiry had earlier been held defective did not compel reinstatement, because the management was entitled to lead evidence before the Tribunal to justify the dismissal. The standard applicable before the industrial adjudicator was also noted to be preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. In writ jurisdiction, interference with findings of fact was not justified unless the findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The award was upheld and no ground for interference was made out; the challenge to the dismissal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where a domestic enquiry is held vitiated, the employer may adduce evidence before the Tribunal to prove misconduct, and the High Court will not interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.

---