JUDGEMENT - G.R. MAJITHIA, J. :---The petitioner, Tulsidas Krishna Bandkar, has challenged the Award dated January 12, 1994 made in Reference No. CGIT-28 of 1991, by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Bombay, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated August 29, 1989. On a petition submitted by him for making a reference under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Government on March 27, 1991 referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. "Whether the management of Bombay Port Trust, Bombay, were justified in dismissing from service Shri T.K. Bandkar, Riveting Mazdoor in Chief Mechanical Engineer Office for a mere loss of photo Identity Card? If not, to what relief is the workmen entitled to. On receipt of the reference, the Industrial Tribunal issued notice to the parties. Statement of claim was filed by the Secretary, B.P.T. Employees Union, Kamgar Sadan. Mazgaon, Bombay for and on behalf of the workman. It is stated that frequent losing of Photo Identity Card or loss of Photo Identity Card do not constitute a misconduct; that neither in the Certified Standing Orders nor in the service regulations duly framed by the first respondent it is mentioned that loss of Photo Identity Card will amount to misconduct; that it was not open to the employer to fish out some conduct as misconduct and punish the workman; that loss of Identity Card for certain reasons cannot amount to negligence in work and that for loss of Identity Card the first respondent could not impose punishment of dismissal from service. 3. The management filed written statement contending that the petitioner did not take care of the Photo Identity Card issued to him in between the period April 5, 1966 to July 4, 1986. The petitioner has lost Photo Identity Card 9 times for which he was warned verbally as well as in writing. On several occasions while warning him he was told that action would be taken against him if he failed to preserve the Identity Card. Despite all these warnings, he lost the Identity Card on July 5, 1986. 4. The Industrial Tribunal in its cryptic order upheld the contention of the management that the Photo Identity Card was lost by the workman on number of occasions. Despite all these warnings, he lost the Identity Card on July 5, 1986. 4. The Industrial Tribunal in its cryptic order upheld the contention of the management that the Photo Identity Card was lost by the workman on number of occasions. He upheld the contention of the management that it has justified the action and that the enquiry was fair and proper. 5. The Industrial Tribunal did not invite its attention as to what constitute misconduct under the Service Regulations applicable to the workman. The Industrial Tribunal also did not pay its attention to section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The service regulations has not been produced before us. On our repeated query as to what is the misconduct as per service regulations, learned Counsel for the first respondent drew our attention to Rule 22(2)(i) and (s) of the B.P.T. Rules and Regulations for Non-Scheduled Staff. The rules have not been produced but a reference to this rule has been made in the written statement filed by the first respondent in the reference. The rule reads thus: "22(2) An employee may be suspended, demoted, and/or reduced in grade, removed or dismissed without notice or any compensation in lieu of notice for any of the following acts or omissions; (i) Habitual negligence or neglect of work; (s) Series or repeated offence against the conduct and discipline Rules." The negligence as mentioned in this Clause obviously has got a reference to the neglect of work. The neglect has to be in the performance of the duties. The term 'habitual negligence' has to be read ejusdem generis with the term neglect of work. There is no proof that the petitioner has been neglecting his work. The Industrial Tribunal in para 8 of the Award has referred to the statement of the management's witness in the enquiry. The management's witness in his evidence admitted that there was no complaint regarding the work in the section. This admission clearly implies that there is no complaint regarding the work of the petitioner. Learned Counsel also submitted before us that his post service record is not good. This submission is devoid of any merit. Neither any material was produced before the Industrial Tribunal in support of the submission nor before us. Even no pleading was raised in this writ petition that the past service record of the petitioner was not good. Learned Counsel also submitted before us that his post service record is not good. This submission is devoid of any merit. Neither any material was produced before the Industrial Tribunal in support of the submission nor before us. Even no pleading was raised in this writ petition that the past service record of the petitioner was not good. This submission is shallow since it is not based upon any material. 6. Even otherwise, we are not satisfied that the rule on the basis of which the charge-sheet was framed against the petitioner envisages that he is negligent in the performance of work. Loss of Identity Card on more than one occasion may not behove a workman. He is expected to be vigilant but loss of Identity Card may not amount to misconduct as is understood in the service language. The loss of Identity Card is not misconduct for which penalty of dismissal from service can be imposed. It is not pointed out that the Identity Card was misused by the workmen or he permitted its misuse by somebody else and as a result of the misuse respondent No. 1 was put to a loss or inconvenience. We have found that the petitioner's conduct does not amount to misconduct as envisaged by service regulations. Nevertheless, he has not been careful in preserving his Identity Card. For this minor lapse on his part he may be liable for some punishment may be a warning, censure or loss of an increment. 7. The petitioner workman was dismissed from service on August 28, 1989. The normal rule is that once the dismissal order is set aside the workman has to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. This can only be examined by the Industrial Court after permitting the parties to lead evidence in this behalf. 8. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the Award dated 12th January, 1994 and remand the case to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal to re-decide the matter in the light of the observations made above and to impose such punishment as he thinks fit or justified keeping in view the mandatory provisions of section 11-A of the I.D. Act. The parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Bombay, on April 2, 1996. The parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Bombay, on April 2, 1996. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal is directed to dispose of the reference in the light of the observations made above within 3 months from the date the parties put in appearance before it. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms, with costs quantified at Rs. 3,000/-. The costs will be paid to the workman on the first date of hearing before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Petition allowed.