https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314357 Under section 33(2)(b), the approving authority's inquiry is limited to whether the statutory conditions are met, a proper domestic enquiry was held, and a prima facie case exists; it cannot reappraise evidence or sit in appeal over the employer's findings unless the result is wholly unsupported by legal evidence or tainted by victimisation or unfair labour practice. Applying that standard, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by rejecting approval on the merits of the domestic enquiry. The dismissal of Har Prasad was also not shown to be victimisation, as the material supported the charge and no protected-workman status was established. en-us Mon, 12 Dec 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jun 2024 18:24:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314357 Under section 33(2)(b), the approving authority's inquiry is limited to whether the statutory conditions are met, a proper domestic enquiry was held, and a prima facie case exists; it cannot reappraise evidence or sit in appeal over the employer's findings unless the result is wholly unsupported by legal evidence or tainted by victimisation or unfair labour practice. Applying that standard, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by rejecting approval on the merits of the domestic enquiry. The dismissal of Har Prasad was also not shown to be victimisation, as the material supported the charge and no protected-workman status was established. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 Dec 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314357