HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.338 OF 2003 ORDER:- (As per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.10325 of 1994, dated 19.12.2002, wherein, the learned single Judge, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/Corporation preferred the present appeal. 2. The 2nd respondent-workman was working appointed as General Workman with the Appellant/Corporation. On the ground that, he was indulged in theft of 10 litres of petrol and kept the same under the driving set of a vehicle, a domestic enquiry was conducted and charge sheet dated 22.09.1989 was issued to him. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent-workman was terminated from the services with effect from 15.11.1990. The 2nd respondent-workman raised an Industrial Dispute I.D.No.6 of 1994 before the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, under Section 10 (1) (d)2(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal held that the workman had not committed theft of petrol as alleged by the Corporation. Further, taking into consideration the gravity of punishment, the Tribunal held that, terminating the services of the workman for stealing 10 litres of petrol is disproportionate. The Tribunal directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman with effect from 16.11.1990 with full back wages and continuity of service. Thus, the Labour Court dismissed the said petition. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, Writ Petition No.10325 of 1992 has been moved by the Corporation. 3. The learned single Judge while dealing with the writ petition held that, the admission of the workman has to be more specific and should be made by the person concerned with full knowledge and observed that the workman sought for an excuse in his letter dated 30.09.1999. However, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that, there was no valid or cogent material to put against the 2nd respondent-workman. Aggrieved by the said order in the writ petition, the present writ appeal has been preferred. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the workman and Standing Counsel for the Corporation and perused the entire material available on record. 5. Though the allegations of stealing 10 litres of petrol is made against the 2nd respondent-workman, no supporting evidence is established thereof. In the facts and circumstances of the case stated supra, ends of natural justice would be met if a considerable amount is awarded to the workman. Hence, we deem it appropriate to grant Rs.4.00 lakhs (Rupees Four Lakhs) to the workman instead of directing for reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages towards his full and final payment. The Appellant/Corporation is directed to pay the said sum of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the 2nd respondent/workman within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. In the result, the writ appeal is disposed of, but however, without costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 22nd December, 2011 sp HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) IN WRIT APPEAL NO.338 OF 2003 22nd December, 2011 sp