Writ courts cannot reappreciate disciplinary evidence absent perversity, procedural unfairness, or disproportionate punishment.

The employer challenged an Industrial Tribunal award dated 19 September 2025, made under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which followed a Division Bench remand for reappraisal of evidence already on record.

The workman, a security guard/jamadar, was charged with theft of company cables, loss of confidence and conduct subversive of discipline.

The employer alleged that approximately 80 kg of cable was recovered from the workman’s possession on 10 November 2014; the workman denied the charge and maintained that he had been falsely implicated.

Following a domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service.

On remand, the Tribunal set aside the disciplinary outcome.

The employer then sought judicial review of that award.

Whether the Tribunal exceeded the scope of the Division Bench’s remand and impermissibly reappreciated the evidence in the domestic enquiry.

Whether the Tribunal’s award disclosed a reviewable perversity or other basis for interference with the disciplinary finding and dismissal.

Under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal adjudicated the workman’s individual dispute.

In disciplinary proceedings, misconduct is assessed on the balance or preponderance of probabilities, not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; the proceedings are not governed by the strict rules of evidence applicable in a criminal trial (State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh, para. 18; Union of India v. Dalbir Singh, para. 20).

Judicial review is restrained: the court does not act as an appellate fact-finder or substitute its assessment for that of the disciplinary authority, but may intervene where findings are based on no evidence, are perverse, or where vital evidence has been ignored (Heem Singh, para. 18; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, para. 19).

The Division Bench’s remand directed the Tribunal to fairly and independently reappraise the evidence on the existing record and permitted submissions on the appropriate punishment.

The Court found that the domestic enquiry had been extensive and that the workman had received a fair opportunity to participate; the Division Bench had also rejected the contention that he was seriously prejudiced by the absence of a lawyer.

It considered the Tribunal’s reappraisal to have gone beyond the limited remand and to have scrutinised the evidence more extensively than was warranted.

The Court also relied on circumstances it considered material, including that the workman was in the factory premises after his leave had commenced and shortly before his scheduled train, and that the stolen goods were recovered in circumstances involving his family members and a Tata Sumo.

It concluded that the Tribunal’s contrary award was perverse and that the disciplinary process disclosed no breach of natural justice warranting interference with the employer’s decision.

It set aside the award dated 19 September 2025 and allowed the writ petition, WPA 27880 of 2025.