THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26827 of 1997 Dated:19.09.2007 Between 1.M/s.Nova Furniture Pvt Ltd., Suryodaya Buildings, Begumpet, Hdyerabad. ..Petitioner and 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Chandravihar Buildings MJ Road, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26827 of 1997 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award dated 13.2.1997 passed in I.D.No.90 of 1994 on the file of the Labour Court at Hyderabad. The petitioner is the management and 2nd respondent is the workman. It appears that when the services of the 2nd respondent were terminated on the allegation of theft of two video games and one pair of socks, he filed a claim petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court at Hyderabad. It was his contention that the enquiry was not properly conducted and he was not given fair opportunity to defend himself and absolutely, there was no evidence to prove the charges framed against him. Even assuming that the charges are proved, they were trivial in nature and do not warrant dismissal from service. The petitioner-Management filed a detailed counter filed before the Labour Court denying the allegations made by 2nd respondent and it was stated that 2nd respondent-workman was given full and fair opportunity to defend himself and there is any amount of evidence to show that 2nd respondent has committed theft of those articles. Therefore, no lesser punishment could have been imposed on 2nd respondent. On behalf of 2nd respondent-workman, he himself was examined as WW1 and Exs.W1 to W13 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner-Management, MW1 was examined and Exs.M1 to M19 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence on record, and on perusal of the material placed before it, the labour Court came to the conclusion that absolutely there was no eye witness to the incident of theft. But, however, held that the evidence of other witnesses and the fact of recovery of the stolen articles from 2nd respondent soon after the theft would indicate that he had committed the theft. Further, the labour Court while examining as to whether the punishment of dismissal from service was proportionate to that of the misconduct alleged, took notice of the fact that the articles stolen were worth Rs.200/- and held that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against 2nd respondent and thus ordered for his reinstatement with 50% of the back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Management. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the labour Court while holding that the domestic enquiry is valid ought not to have interfered with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer as approved by the disciplinary authority. Further, it is absolutely not correct to say that there was no eye witnesses to the incident in this case. The very recovery of the articles from the possession of 2nd respondent-workman would indicate that he has committed the theft. The Court below having rightly recorded so, erred in awarding 50% of the back wages without furnishing any reasons. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- workman supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that absolutely there was no mistake of any nature attributable to the 2nd respondent and his past conduct was fair and good and he never committed any such mistake earlier in his service. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against 2nd respondent were proved in view of the recovery of the articles from his possession and further in view of the fact that the value of the articles was only Rs.200/- and they are nothing but video games and a pair of socks, the labour Court while exercising the discretionary power vested in it under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 took a lenient view of the matter and ordered reinstatement with 50% of the back wages. Therefore, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. Firstly, it is very interesting to notice that the 2nd respondent was not deputed to work at the residence of the Managing Director. His place of work was department and he was orally asked to attend some domestic work at the residence of the Managing Director and in that process, according to the workman, when he refused to attend the domestic work entrusted to him, this case was foisted against him. Be that as it may, it is no where stated as to why 2nd respondent was entrusted with domestic work at the residence of the Managing Director. The Labour Court, of course, has rightly noted that no one has witnessed the workman actually removing and taking away the articles, but the fact of their recovery soon after the theft indicates that he had committed the theft. May be, in a service case like this, even hear say evidence can be taken into consideration. But when the charge is theft, it must be proved as per the evidence. In this case, admittedly, there was no eye witness to that extent. It is only on the basis of the hear say evidence of other domestic servants in the residence of the Managing Director, it was stated that the stolen articles worth Rs.200/- were recovered from the possession of 2nd respondent-workman. Whether the stolen articles were worth Rs.200/- or Rs.2000/- there was no evidence even to that extent. The Labour Court while exercising its discretionary powers under Section 11-A of the Act has taken a decision holding that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct and the workman was entitled for reinstatement and also 50% of the back wages. I am of the opinion that the petitioner- Management has not made out any case to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. _________ 19-07-2007 rkk