Disciplinary findings stand on preponderance of probabilities, and tribunals cannot reweigh evidence like an appellate court.

In disciplinary proceedings under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal cannot reappreciate evidence as if sitting in appeal over a fair domestic enquiry. Where the enquiry is proper and the record supports charges such as unauthorised absence and disorderly conduct, the management's findings should not be displaced merely because another view is possible. The applicable standard is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and a criminal acquittal does not prevent departmental action. On that basis, interference with the dismissal was held unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Industrial Tribunal could set aside the dismissal by reappreciating the evidence and applying the criminal standard of proof in a disciplinary proceeding under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The domestic enquiry was found to be fair, proper and in accordance with natural justice. The record contained evidence supporting the charges of leaving duty without permission and riotous and disorderly behaviour, and the Tribunal erred in treating the matter as if it were sitting in appeal over the domestic findings. In disciplinary proceedings, the applicable standard is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and a criminal acquittal does not bar departmental action. Where evidence supports the management's conclusion, the Tribunal should not substitute its own view merely because another view is possible.

Conclusion: The Industrial Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the findings of the domestic enquiry or in setting aside the dismissal on the footing of absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: In a disciplinary proceeding, a Tribunal under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot substitute its own assessment for a domestic enquiry's evidence-based findings merely because it would reach a different view, and misconduct need only be established on a preponderance of probabilities.

---