JUDGMENT : B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an Award of the First Labour Court, Thane, dated 22nd November 1985, made in Reference (IDA) No. 876 of 1976 under the provisions of Section 10(1) read with 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner was working as a watchman in the service of the First Respondent which is an establishment manufacturing stainless steel goods. On 4th March, 1975 the petitioner made a report to the Security Superintendent that he had found one workman Ramashankar Jagannath Yadav trying to commit theft of some ball bearings. The Security Department looked in the circumstance and was convinced of the said facts as evidenced by the reports of the Security Supervisory dated 5.3.1975 and the Assistant Security Superintendent dated 5.3.1975. The Supervisor of the Department, B. S. Chikane, also made a report that the petitioner had found the workman, Ramashankar Jagannath Yadav, committing theft of the balance bearings. This fact was also corroborated by an independent report made by one Clancy Rebello to the Production Manager on 5.3.1975. One would have expected that these circumstances would have resulted in action taken against Ramashankar Jagannath Yadav. Surprisingly, however, on 2nd May, 1975, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet which alleged against him that in or about the month of April 1974 the petitioner had committed theft of 54 ball bearings of annealing furnace which were kept on the said furnace. It was alleged that the petitioner had committed theft of this ball bearings with the connivance of one Ramashankar Jagannath Yadav, who had admitted his complicity in the matter and had given a statement in writing. A copy of the alleged statement of admission dated 23.4.1975 was also enclosed with the said charge-sheet. In the said statement purported to have been given by Ramashankar Jagannath Yadav, it was alleged that on 5.4.1974 the petitioner had conspired with Ramashankar Jagannath Yadav to remove certain ball bearings belonging to the First Respondent Company from the premises of the factory for being delivered to the petitioner at the Kanjur Marg Railway Station in consideration of payment of Rs. 50/-. 50/-. By his reply dated 6.5.1975, the petitioner denied the charges alleged against him and pointed out that on 4.3.1975 itself he had reported to the Security Office the theft by Ramashankar Jagannath Yadav which had resulted in criminal case being lodged against him. Petitioner also contended that, because of the said report made against him, Ramashankar Jagannath Yadav had enmity, ill-will or malice towards him and had, therefore, made a false compliant against the petitioner. He also pointed out that, if at all there was any truth in the complaint made by Ramashankar Jagannath Yadav, he would not have kept quiet from 5.4.1974 till 23.4.1975 to bring the said fact to the notice of the management of the first respondent, a long enquiry was held which resulted in the petitioner found guilty of the charges of theft, fraud and dishonesty, and by an order dated 19.11.1975, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner moved the Government Labour Officer for intervention. The Government Labour Officer called both the parties for amicable settlement, and failing settlement, the petitioner moved the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for conciliation. Conciliation proceedings in a failure report by an order of reference by the Government referring the industrial dispute to the Labour Court, Thane, vide Reference (IDA) No. 876 of 1976. 3. The Labour Court, in the first place, tried the issue as to legality and propriety of the enquiry. By its Part I Award dated 30.9.1982 it held that the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner was not fair and proper and that the findings arrived at the Enquiry Officer on the evidence adduced before him were perverse. Consequently, the Labour Court its aside the enquiry and the findings made by the Enquiry Officer and posted the case for evidence on merits. The first respondent was given an opportunity of leading evidence as to the merits of the charge. After recording evidence of the parties, the Labour Court, by its Part II Award dated 22.11.1985, took the view that the misconduct of theft alleged against the petitioner had been proved and that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by the present writ petition. 4. In the first place, it is straightaway noticed that there is no direct evidence substantiating the charge of theft alleged against the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by the present writ petition. 4. In the first place, it is straightaway noticed that there is no direct evidence substantiating the charge of theft alleged against the petitioner. Even the Labour Court was conscious of this fact, as seen from its observations in paragraph 18 of the impugned Award. However, the Labour Court felt that misconduct could be held proved from the inferences which could legitimately and irresistibly be drawn from the evidence. The Labour Court also appears to have been impressed by the fact that the only person, who could have given direct evidence was Ramashankar Jagannath Yadav, who died some time in 1983 while the proceedings were ending before the Labour Court. Certain facts which were pointed out by the petitioner, in support of his case have been rejected by the Labour Court, in my view, somewhat brusquely, because the Labour Court appeared overawed by the inference which, according to it, could "legitimately and irresistibly" be drawn from the evidence on record. 5. It would be in order to quickly refer to the nature of evidence on record before the Labour Court. Witness Manual J. D'Cunha, working as Maintenance Foreman in the Company, deposed about the also of 54 ball bearings about which he had made a written report on 4.5.1974 to the Production Manager and the fact that the Security Department had lodged complaint about the loss of ball bearings. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the theft, nor as to whether any workman could have committed the theft. Witness Prem Amarnath Gupta, Production Manager, affirmed the contents of this letter dated 21st May, 1974 to the Bhandup Police but stated nothing to connect the petitioner with theft. Clifford Rego's evidence is of no relevance as he also does not state anything against the petitioner. Vinod Mahandera Paul Seth, Security Superintendent, affirmed the fact that in April, 1974 there was a theft of 54 ball bearings and that this fact had come to his notice in April 1974 and that he and D'Cunha, Maintenance Foreman, had gone to the Bhandup Police Station to complain. He stated that in April 1975 Ramakant had come and told him the story about how 54 ball bearings were stolen. According to him, Ramashankar told him that the petitioner had conspired with Ramashankar and that for consideration of Rs. He stated that in April 1975 Ramakant had come and told him the story about how 54 ball bearings were stolen. According to him, Ramashankar told him that the petitioner had conspired with Ramashankar and that for consideration of Rs. 50/- Ramashankar had committed the theft of ball bearings. He also asserted that Ramashankar gave his statement in writing at his instance on 23rd April, 1975 which he identified. He admitted that such thefts were taking place in the factory even before the petitioner was dismissed and even thereafter. He also knew that Ramashankar was a thief and that he had no suspicion to link the petitioner with the incident of theft of 1974. He disclaimed knowledge of the fact that the petitioner had been challenged by the Metropolitan Magistrate of the offence of theft. Govind Baburao More. Police Inspector, gave details about investigation carried out by him in connection with C.R. No. 113 of 1975, pertaining to the theft of vernacular caliper committed by Ramashankar Jagannath Yadav. Though he arrested the petitioner on the basis of statement made by Ramashankar, he admitted that he had submitted that he had submitted a discharge report to the Metropolitan Magistrate stating that the petitioner be discharged as there was no evidence against him. He also stated that initially the case had been listed in 'A' Classification, but was subsequently reopened, though he admitted that there was no specific complaint against the petitioner when he reopened the investigation in 1975. He stated that Ramashankar was convicted of the offences alleged while the petitioner was discharged by the Magistrate. The petitioner himself gave evidence before the Labour Court and denied that he had committed theft of 54 ball bearings. He also stated that Ramashankar Yadav was caught by him committing theft in March 1975, and that relations of the petitioner with one Vinod Seth. Security Superintendent, were not good, because Seth was asking the petitioner to do his personal work at his residence, which the petitioner refused. The evidence given by the petitioner suggests that he had detected 2/3 theft cases during the period of his service and Ramashankar Yadav's case was one of them. In his cross-examination he was pointed out an affidavit dated 6.11.1975 sworn by Ramashankar Yadav, a copy of which had been placed on record by the petitioner. The original of the said affidavit was also taken on record. In his cross-examination he was pointed out an affidavit dated 6.11.1975 sworn by Ramashankar Yadav, a copy of which had been placed on record by the petitioner. The original of the said affidavit was also taken on record. (The said affidavit is at page 147 of the writ petition). In this affidavit, Ramashankar Jagannath Yadav categorically states that his earlier statement dated 23.4.1975 was given under pressure of the Company and against his free will and consent. He also names Personnel Manager N. R. S. Rao, and Security Superintendent, Vinodkumar Seth, a the persons pressuring him to give his statement in writing. He retracts has earlier allegations and states that what was stated in Bhandup Police Station was under pressure of the said two Officers. Another letter dated 6.11.1975 written in Hindi by Ramashankar Jagannath Yadav categorically asserts that the contents of his report dated 23.4.1975 were false. Because under pressure of N. R. S. Rao and Vinodkumar Seth he had false implicated the petitioner in the theft case which took place on 5.4.1974. He denied that the petitioner had asked him to remove any material from the Company or that he had been paid by the petitioner. In short, he retracted and denied all allegations made against the petitioner in the earlier letter dated 23.4.1975 and asserted that such allegations had been made only at the instance of the Officers of the First Respondent, under their pressure. Incidentally, on record of the writ petition, at page 148, is the letter dated 25th September, 1975 written by the Welfare officer and Chief Security Officer, P. L. Prabhu to the Managing Director of the First Respondent. In this letter, Prabhu pointed out that, when he was in service the petitioner was vigilant in his duties and had brought to light many cases of thefts and irregularities against the workers as a consequence of which all workers and their Union were against him. He also stated that he knew that the Security Supervisor, Vinod was against the petitioner as the petitioner had refused to do personal work of Vinod and that he had noticed that Vinod and others were trying to involve the petitioner in false cases. He also asserts that Vinod had stated before him that under any circumstances he would see that these two watchmen, Dube and Pande were dismissed from the Company. 6. He also asserts that Vinod had stated before him that under any circumstances he would see that these two watchmen, Dube and Pande were dismissed from the Company. 6. It is unfortunate that in the face of this evidence, the Labour Court seems to have concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the charges alleged against him on account of the so called 'legitimate' and 'irresistible' inference arising from the evidence on record In the first place, it is not possible to say that the evidence on record gives rise to any such legitimate or irresistible inference as to the guilt of the petitioner. In any event, the Labour Court, completely ignored the petitioner's case in the matter that he was being victimised by the Officers of the Company, particularly Security Supervisor, Vinod on account of personal animosity as the petitioner had refused to do the personal work of Viond. In my view, the findings recorded by the Labour Court cannot arise from the evidence on record nor are they such as could have been arrived at by any reasonable person instructed in law, on the evidence on record. I am constrained to say that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are nothing if not perverse. The manner in which the Labour Court analysed the evidence is less than satisfactory. A careful application of mind to the evidence on record would have convinced the Labour Court that there was no evidence worth the name which proved misconduct of the petitioner. The explanation tendered by the petitioner. The explanation tendered by the petitioner. The explanation tendered by the petitioner for the false charges being alleged against him remained the same from the word 'go'. On perusal of all the material on record it seems to me that there was a preponderant probability of the petitioner's case being true, apart from the fact that there was hardly any material to show the petitioner guilty of the charges alleged against him. 7. To these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned Award of the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. The impugned Award of the Labour Court dated 22.11.1985 in Reference (IDA) No. 876 of 1976 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service. 7. To these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned Award of the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. The impugned Award of the Labour Court dated 22.11.1985 in Reference (IDA) No. 876 of 1976 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service. Even the Labour Court has answered Issue No. 5 in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, there is no reason whey the Petitioner should be denied back wages. 8. In the result, the first respondent is hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wags, continuity and all consequential benefits from the date of his dismissal i.e., 19th November, 1975. The order of reinstatement and payment of full back wages shall be carried into effect not later than 16th August, 1995, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of back wages, apart from the other legal consequences which may flow from such rule. 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 10. The First Respondent to pay the costs to the petitioner quantified at Rs. 500/-.