JUDGMENT : H.H. Kantharia, J.- The petitioner was in the employment of the first respondent as a clerk from 7th March, 1970. He was dismissed with effect from 3rd June, 1975 on the ground that certain charges levelled against him were proved in a domestic enquiry. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute for his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court at Kolhapur. The learned Labour Judge, on considering the evidence adduced before him, came to a conclusion that two out of the three allegations made against the petitioner were not proved and the third allegation was proved but it did not amount to a misconduct. He was of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal inflicted on the petitioner was too harsh but since the first respondent had reasonable grounds to lose confidence in the petitioner, which did not amount to punishment, he should be deemed to have been retrenched from service from the day of the award made on 26th February, 1981 in Reference (IDA) No. 99 of 1976. He accordingly by the said award granted the petitioner retrenchment compensation of Rs. 1,375/- and also cost of Rs. 50/-. In other words, the demand of the petitioner for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages was rejected. It is the said award that has been impugned by the petitioner in this petition. 2. Now, the first allegation against the petitioner was that he was not found at the place of his duty on a certain day. The learned Labour Judge held that from the evidence on record, it was not proved that the petitioner had committed any misconduct by remaining absent from his place of work and, therefore, that charge failed. The second allegation against the petitioner was that he had taken away his personal files unauthorisedly. The learned Labour Judge came to a conclusion that on the material on record, it could not be said that the said charge was established. The third allegation levelled against the petitioner was that he effected changes in certain entries in the office record and thereby tampered with same. The learned Labour Judge came to a conclusion that on the material on record, it could not be said that the said charge was established. The third allegation levelled against the petitioner was that he effected changes in certain entries in the office record and thereby tampered with same. This was in connection with the petitioner handing over to the first respondent more than one key which he had got prepared as he had lost a bunch of keys of the office and thereafter making changes in the record that he had handed over only one key to the first respondent. After an elaborate discussion of the evidence, the Labour Judge came to a conclusion that it was proved that the petitioner had got more than one key prepared but he handed over only one key to the first respondent and made alterations to that effect in their official records but the said conduct on the part of the petitioner did not amount to a misconduct. However, he held that on account of such conduct on the part of the petitioner, the first respondent bona fide lost confidence in the petitioner. Thus it can be seen that two out of the three allegations made against the petitioner were not proved and one that was proved did not amount to a misconduct. Therefore, the question of losing confidence in the petitioner did not arise and he could not nave been retrenched on that ground. Be that as it may and assuming for the sake of argument that all that was alleged against the petitioner was proved even then this is not a case in which the petitioner should be visited with the extreme penalty of loss of job. Even if we agree with the finding of the Labour Court that this was a case of retrenchment which would be illegal because the conditions governing the retrenchment u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with, the relief as and by way of paying retrenchment compensation would not be adequate relief to the petitioner. In our opinion, therefore, the impugned award made by the Labour Court rejecting the demand of the petitioner for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is not in accordance with law. The same has got to be set aside. The petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. 3. In our opinion, therefore, the impugned award made by the Labour Court rejecting the demand of the petitioner for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is not in accordance with law. The same has got to be set aside. The petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. 3. However, as regards back wages it may be seen that if the petitioner was granted full back wages, it would amount to more than Rs. 43,000/-. It is not that the petitioner's services were terminated on account of victimisation or by way of unfair, labour practice. There were some reasons for the first respondent to feel agitated about the acts of the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, to be visited with some punishment for what he had done. We propose to reduce the quantum of his back wages and quantify the same at Rs. 25,000/-. We feel that ends of justice will be served if an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards the back wages. 4. In the result, this petition succeeds. We direct that the first respondent shall reinstate the petitioner with effect from 1st October, 1987 in his original position with continuity of service and pay to him a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) towards the back wages on or before 31st October, 1987. If the amount of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty-five thousand) is not paid up by the first respondent to the petitioner by the end of October 1987, the first respondent shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum, on the said sum effective from 1st November, 1987. 5. Rule is made absolute in terms aforesaid but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.