Short Note : 1. The two petitions (MP. No. 136/72 and No. 161/72) arise out of the award given by the presiding Judge of the Labour Court, Gwalior on a reference made under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Miscellaneous petition No. 161/72 is at the instance of the Labour Union, known as 'Audyogik Sansthan Mazdoor Sangh, representating the case of the dismissed employee, whereas Misc. petition No. 136 of 1972 has been filed by the employer. M.P. Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. (State Government under taking). Since both these petitions arise out of the same award, they were heard together and this order shall govern the disposal of both the petitions. 2. The Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry held by the Management was proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court, however, held that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and disproportionate to the charge. The learned Labour Judge was, however. of the opinion that since the charge involved defalcation by an employee in charge of the cash amount, the employer had naturally lost confidence and it would not be proper to compel the Management to retain such an employee in service and accordingly, the learned Labour Court directed that the employee should be paid a compensation equal to the amount of emoluments for the number of months equal to the number of his completed years of service. Held: If the workman admits the guilt and relied on circumstances mitigating the gravity of the offence, it will be rather fair to examine the workman himself even in the first instance so as to enable him to offer any explanation for his conduct and place such mitigating circumstances. In the present case, it is evident from the perusal of the reply to the show cause notice filed by the delinquent employee that he did not dispute the fact that the cash balance was found short. He made payment towards the shortage and relied on the circumstances that he was so much over-burdened with work, being in charge of both stores and accounts, that he could not write the cash book daily. He also stated that he had no experience of accounting and, therefore, could not maintain the accounts properly. He made payment towards the shortage and relied on the circumstances that he was so much over-burdened with work, being in charge of both stores and accounts, that he could not write the cash book daily. He also stated that he had no experience of accounting and, therefore, could not maintain the accounts properly. He was assigned with the performance of the duties of accountant in addition to his work of store-keeper and as such he was over-burdened, Under these circumstances, there was no question of prejudice being caused to the delinquent if he was examined first to state the circumstances on which he relied for explaining the admitted default and was asked to adduce his evidence in support of his, contention. 3. The employee should have taken all care to keep the money belonging to the Corporation in cash box of the Management and should have given preference to the work of writing the cash transaction, daily and striking out the daily balance. He could not avoid his responsibility for doing this important work by saying that he was busy otherwise. For the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to accept the contention that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate in any manner. Once a misconduct is proved after holding a proper enquiry the quantum of punishment is a matter of discretion of the employer who is free to decide the course of action in such cases. The Tribunal or Courts will definitely exceed their jurisdiction if they go to the extent of substituting their own discretion in the matter of quantum of punishment in place of the discretion exercised by the employer, unless a case of mala fide, unfair labour prectice or victimisation is found to be proved or the penalty imposed is in contravention of the statutory provisions prescribing specific penalties by classifying the misconducts In this case, the learned Judge of the Labour Court had simply observed that the penalty of dismissal was too severe and harsh. This observation is without any basis. Looking to the nature of the charge found proved. This observation is without any basis. Looking to the nature of the charge found proved. against the employee, if the employer felt that it was not proper to retain such person in employment, who did not care to write the cash transactions regularly day to day and kept the money of the corporation in his own pocket till the same was detected, there was nothing improper in directing dismissal of such an employee and the Tribunal cannot interfere with the same by observing that either because the employee had deposited the amount of shortage after detection or that, earlier in one case, the corporation employer let of an employee with character roll warning only, the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service was too severe or harsh and, therefore, illegal. There, was thus no justification for the Tribunal to direct the employer to pay compensation to the employee in the present case. AIR 1968 SC. 236 and AIR 1968 SC. 266 relied on. Petition allowed. Petition No 161 of 1972 dismissed.