M. KATJU, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Allahabad dated 12-1- 83. 2. I have heard learned counsel for parties. 3. The petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company which manufactures Ce ment at Satna in Madhya Pradesh. It has a godown in Naini, Allahabad and a sales depot at Bansidhar Market, Uchamandi, Allahabad. The petitioner No. 2 was the depot incharge of the Naini Godown. Respondent No. 1 was employed in the Naini Godown. On 14-12-80 hundred bags of cement were removed from the Naini Godown unauthorisedly. It is alleged that respondents No. 1 Bachchan Lal Srivastava was one of the persons who was involved in the unauthorised removal of 100 bags of Cement. He was given a show cause notice dated 16-1-81 alleging his involvement and stating that the Management has lost con fidence in him and asking him to show cause, true copy of the notice is Annexure 1 to the petition. By the order dated 23-2-81 his services were terminated vide Annexure 2. It is alleged in para 5 of the writ petition that out of the three employees involved in the incident of removal of 100 bags of Ce ment, Tarkeshwar Nath abandoned his employment after being arrested by the police and L. P. Gupta and Sumer Chand Jain resigned on receiving the show cause notice. In para 7 of the petition it is alleged that the procedure for issue of Cement from Naini godown was that the District Con trolling authority used to send a list of allot tees to the sale depot of the petitioner at Unchamandi. On production of the allot ment order and tendering the purchase amount the sale depot used to issue delivery orders to the petitioners godown. These delivery orders were signed by either the petitioner No. 2 or the office accountant Bothra or his assistant P. R. Sharma. Cement was delivered against delivery orders and challans were issued by the godown In charge S. C. Jain or the deliveryman on duty in four copies. The original challans were handed over to the trucks taking the cement bags. No cement or challans were authorised to be issued without a delivery order. Respondent No. 1 was also authorised to issue challans in the absence of the godown incharge. The original challans were handed over to the trucks taking the cement bags. No cement or challans were authorised to be issued without a delivery order. Respondent No. 1 was also authorised to issue challans in the absence of the godown incharge. On 14-12-1980 hundred bags of cement were removed from the Naini godown without any delivery order. The cement was removed in a truck of Laxmi Transport Company, a regular transporter of cement from the Naini Godown and the truck with the cement from the Naini godown, was apprehended by the police in the night of 14/15 Decem ber, 1980 in Jangiganj Police Thana area. The truck was seized by the police and the truck driver and Tarkeshwar Nath, an employee of the petitioner, were arrested. The challan with the driver was found to be of Naini Godown. When the above matter came to the knowledge of the petitioner No. 2 enquiries were made and the management was satisfied about involvement of the aforesaid persons. The stock in the godown was found to be correct and the question arose as to how these employees managed to manipulate excess cement bags in the godown. 4. It is alleged in para 12 of the petition that during the course of preliminary inves tigation respondent No. 1 submitted two written explanations dated 17-12-80 and 29-12-80, in which he admitted having made out a challan for 100 bags of cement un authorised, true copies of which are Annexure 3 and 4 to the writ petition. After calling for his explanation from respondent No. 1, the petitioner terminated his service under clause 11 (e) of the Standing Orders of the Company. The respondent No. 1 raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court which decided in his favour. Hence this petition. 5. From the facts stated above it is evident that no enquiry was held against respondent No. 1. In my opinion an enquiry should have been held so that the employee concerned could have been given an oppor tunity of hearing. 6. In my opinion when an allegation of misconduct is made against a workman he should be given a charge-sheet and a domes tic enquiry should be held against him giving him full opportunity of hearing. In my opinion an enquiry should have been held so that the employee concerned could have been given an oppor tunity of hearing. 6. In my opinion when an allegation of misconduct is made against a workman he should be given a charge-sheet and a domes tic enquiry should be held against him giving him full opportunity of hearing. This is a basic principle of industrial law vide Provin cial Transport Services v. S. I. C. , AIR 1963 SC 114 ; Sur Enamel and Stamping Works v. Their workmen, AIR 1963 S. C. 114 etc. It is also open to the management to suspend the workman pending the enquiry. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this was a case of a termina tion simpliciter for loss of confidence which was permissible under the Standing Orders of the Establishment. I do not agree with this submission. No doubt in certain earlier rulings the Supreme Court had upheld ter mination simpliciter orders on the ground of loss of confidence e. g. Chartered Bank v. Its Employees, AIR 1960 SC 919 ; Air India Corpn. v. V. A. Rebellow and another, 1972 (1) LLJ 501 ; Workers v. Sudder Office, 1971 (II) LLJ 620 . However, in Chandulal v. The Management, 1985 (51) FLR 142 the Supreme Court held that termination for loss of confidence casts a stigma on the employee and this view has been followed in K. K. Laxman v. Pan American Airways, AIR 1987 SC 229 . It follows that an enquiry must precede such termination vide A. R. Mohan v. Presiding Officer, 1989 (59) FLR I (Knt ). 8. In D. K. Yadav v. J. M. A. Industries, 1993 (3) JT 617 , the Supreme Court ob served that even if there is Standing Order providing for automatic loss of lien for 8 days absence without leave yet an oppor tunity of hearing must be given the employee before terminating his service. It can thus be seen that the trend in recent Supreme Court decisions is to insist on giving a hearing despite any provision in the Standing Orders. It can thus be seen that the trend in recent Supreme Court decisions is to insist on giving a hearing despite any provision in the Standing Orders. It is no doubt true that even if no enquiry was held before the ter mination of service the employer can lead evidence before the Tribunal to justify its action, but in this case it appears that this point was not pressed by the petitioner at any stage. Copies of the statements of the petitioners witnesses have not been an nexed to the writ petition. A perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court, true copy of which is Annexure 7 to this petition, shows that the petitioner never prayed for opportunity to lead evidence to justify its action. In S. N. Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, 1983 (4) SCC 491 , it was held by the Supreme Court that the employer must seek opportunity to lead evidence in the written statement or at an early stage. Since this not done I cannot permit this argument to be raised now. 9. As regards the plea of the petitioner that the workman had admitted his guilt, a perusal of the workmans statements, true copies of which are Annexure 3 and 4 to the writ petition, shows that there is no clear admission of his guilt. Unless there is clear admission of guilt an enquiry must be held vide Panitola Tea Estate v. Conciliation Of ficer, AIR 1966 Ass. 138 (para 13); Ram Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 Raj 57 etc. State Bank of Bikaner v. Jagdish Chandra, 1987. L. I. C. 112. 10. Thus there is no force in the argu ments raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, in view of the fact that a very long time has expired since the ter mination of service of the respondent and in view of the special facts of the case I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be serve by directing compensation instead of reinstatement. Hence I modify the award and direct that the respondent will get com pensation of Rs. 50, 000 (Fifty thousands) from the petitioner within three months from today which will be in addition to whatever amount he has received (or was entitled to receive) under the interim order of this Court. 11. Hence I modify the award and direct that the respondent will get com pensation of Rs. 50, 000 (Fifty thousands) from the petitioner within three months from today which will be in addition to whatever amount he has received (or was entitled to receive) under the interim order of this Court. 11. With these observation the writ petition is finally disposed off. Petition disposed of. .