The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Labour ... on 30 July, 2010
19. The next question which now arises for consideration is as to whether this Court, instead of remanding the matter back to the 1st respondent for re-appreciating the entire evidence and to give a fresh finding, can look into the evidence and examine the finding of the appellate authority to decide as to whether the finding arrived at ultimately by the 1st respondent which is impugned in this writ petition is correct or not and to give its own finding. In my considered opinion, the said course is not possible in the given set of facts and circumstances of the case. Though in the judgements relied on by the learned senior counsel for the for the 2nd respondent in K.S.Varadarajan v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour [Appel], Madras, 2005 (1) CTC 538; B.Kumar v. Management of National Institute of Port Management, 2005 (4) LLN 658 and Karuthumayan v. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, 1995 (II) MLJ 440, this Court has taken the view that it is possible for this Court to look into the evidence , re-appreciate the same and come to its own conclusion, in my considered opinion, it is possible only in extraordinary circumstances. If such re-appreciation of the entire evidence available on record would amount to rewriting the entire order of the disciplinary authority / the 1st respondent herein, surely, such course is not possible. In those circumstances, having regard to the fact that when the litigations were pending for quite long time and that the disputed questions were too short that could be resolved by simple appreciation of few facts alone, this court has held that instead of remanding the matter back to the authority, the Court itself would undertake such process. But, in the case on hand, there are several documents and there are multiplicity of charges which required deep re-appreciation of the entire evidence. In my considered opinion, the said course is not all possible. In this regard, I may state that it is well settled law that this Court cannot convert itself into the appellant authority or revisional authority so as to re-appreciate the entire evidence to come to its own conclusions so as to substitute the same in the place of the conclusions arrived at by the forum below. In my considered opinion, in this particular case, it is not at all possible for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence so as to resolve the disputed questions of fact as though this Court is sitting in appeal against the order of the 1st respondent. In view of the above, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for re-appreciation of the entire evidence cannot be accepted.