As per case facts, petitioner, a permanent workman, faced suspension and a charge-sheet after a surprise inspection found company materials in a locker. He denied locker allotment, presence during the ... inspection, and signing the panchanama. The management contended he handed over the keys and signed the document. A domestic enquiry concluded with a finding of misconduct, which the Labour Court upheld, denying him relief. This led to the current appeal against the Labour Court's awards. The question arose whether the domestic enquiry was conducted fairly and if the findings by the Enquiry Officer and subsequently accepted by the Labour Court were illegal, perverse, or so unreasonable as to necessitate interference under writ jurisdiction. Finally, the Court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate grounds for intervention. It upheld the Labour Court's decision, affirming the fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry and ruling that the Enquiry Officer's conclusions were not perverse, considering the standard of proof in such matters is based on a preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.