THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 5839 and 14400 OF 2001 COMMON ORDER: Both the management and the workman concerned have questioned the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.236 of 1998 dated 13.12.2000. While the management filed W.P.No.5839 of 2001, the workman filed W.P.No.14400 of 2001. As such both the Writ Petitions were heard together and are now being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience the parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.5839 of 2001. The first respondent, while working as a Junior Store Keeper at Tuni, was served a memo in the year 1997 for charges of theft and fraud. He submitted his explanation thereto on 28.07.1997. Thereafter an enquiry was held wherein the first respondent-workman is stated to have submitted letter dated 28.10.1997 admitting his guilt. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding the first respondent guilty of the charges. Thereafter an order of dismissal was passed on 21.04.1998. The appeal preferred by the first respondent to the management was rejected, and W.P.No.20003 of 1998 filed by him was dismissed by this Court at the stage of admission. Thereafter the first respondent filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking reinstatement with back wages. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent examined himself as WW.1 and another witness as WW.2. The management examined Sri P.T.Prasada Rao as MW.1. Exs.W.1 to W.13 were marked on behalf of the workman and Exs.M.1 to M.21 were marked on behalf of the management. In the impugned award, the Labour Court noted that the charges levelled against the first respondent-workman were of theft and fraud; MW.1 had elaborately explained that the price variation, between private suppliers and the food supplied by the management, was Rs.100/- per bag of 60 Kgs. each in weight; the first respondent was the store-keeper at Ramabadrapuram branch; as per his own admission, he had sold 152 bags to outsiders for a higher price; he had paid the total amount and the marginal amount of Rs.100/- per bag, which he had wrongfully misappropriated; he had also admitted his guilt in the statement filed before the enquiry officer; and his contention that the said statement was given under coercion was not tenable as he had admitted his guilt in his explanation to the show cause notice under Ex.M.13 which was issued after receipt of the enquiry report. The Labour Court held that charges of fraud and wrongful gain had been established. However, on the ground that there was no concrete material or proof of the quantum that the first respondent-workman had swindled, the Labour Court was of the view that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate. Taking note of the fact that the first respondent-workman had served the management for more than 20 years and, except the present misconduct, he had not committed any misconduct earlier, the Labour Court considered it appropriate to reinstate the workman without back wages but with continuity of service. While the management has chosen to challenge the award in its entirety, the first respondent-workman has questioned it only to the limited extent he was denied back wages. Before this Court Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, Learned Counsel for the first respondent- workman, would submit that the alleged statement of admission of guilt was obtained by coercion; the enquiry held by the enquiry officer was an empty ritual as no witnesses were examined thereat; and the Labour Court was not justified in denying the first respondent back wages having held that the quantum of embezzlement was not known. None of these contentions merit acceptance. As noted hereinabove the first respondent-workman, in the form of a statement, had admitted his guilt not only before the enquiry officer but also in his reply to the show cause notice issued to him after the enquiry was completed. The Labour Court is a fact finding authority and the conclusion of fact arrived at by the Labour Court, that the plea of coercion was without basis, does not call for interference in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As noted in the award, the first respondent-workman had sold 152 bags and had misappropriated the marginal amount of Rs.100/- per bag. Having come to the conclusion that the first respondent-workman was guilty of fraud and misappropriation, the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction, and acted out of misplaced sympathy, in directing his reinstatement with continuity of service on the ground that he had an unblemished earlier record of service, and the quantum of misappropriation was not known. The punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Management, for acts of corruption and misappropriation, even if it is held to have been committed for the first time, would not necessitate interference, and such employees cannot be permitted to continue in service where there exists the possibility of their resorting to similar acts in future. The punishment imposed for acts of misappropriation must also be a deterrent for others. While the Labour Court has been conferred power, under Section 11-A of the Act, to interfere with the quantum of the punishment such interference cannot be as a matter of course or on grounds of misplaced sympathy. It is only where the circumstances of the case warrants interference with the order of punishment, either by substituting it with another or otherwise, would the Labour Court be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act. Interference with the order of punishment, in cases of misappropriation and fraud, is wholly inappropriate. The impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.236 of 1998 dated 13.12.2000 is, accordingly, quashed. W.P.No.5839 of 2001 filed by the management is allowed and W.P.No.14400 of 2001 filed by the workman is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:24.02.2011 Usd