Velu Pillai, J.
1. This is to quash an award by the labour court, Quilon, which held that the dismissal of an employee by his employer, the respondent 3, on the ground of misappropriation of the employer's funds, was Justified. The respondent 3 held an enquiry into the charge of misappropriation against the employee and found the same to be proved. The case of the employee was taken up by the union which has preferred this petition. The labour court, besides finding that the employee had misappropriated the funds, also came to the conclusion that the finding arrived at by the employer at the enquiry was proper and justified.
2. The ground urged before me on behalf of the petitioner was that the employee had only written the accounts, that all he did was at the instance of one Sri T. Jacob, and that he was not guilty of any misappropriation, and the petitioner's learned Counsel referred me to Exs. W. 4 to W 9. I may at once point out that these have nothing to do with the relevant entries in the books of account and with the transactions, which were the subject-matter of the charge against the employee. The jurisdiction of the labour court to interfere with the finding of a domestic tribunal, like that which was set up by the employer to enquire into the charges against the employee, was considered by the Supreme Court In Indian Iron and Steel Company, Ltd. v. their workmen 1958-I L.L.J. 260 and was defined In the following terms:
In cases of dismissal on misconduct, the tribunal does not, however, act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management. It will interfere
(i) when there Is a want of good faith,
(ii) when there is a victimization or unfair labour practice,
(iii) when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, and
(iv) when on the materials the finding is completely baseless or perverse.
This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court In G. Mckenzie & Co., Ltd. v. its workmen 1959-I L.L.J. 285 . It follows that, this petition is groundless and it is dismissed with costs, including advocate's fee Rs. 100.