V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE workman is aggrieved of the impugned award dated November 18, 1995 passed by the industrial Tribunal in. D. No. 298/1986 has filed this Writ petition urging various legal grounds. ( 2 ) THE 2nd Respondent Tribunal has adjudicated the Industrial Dispute referred to it pertaining the order of dismissal dated December 5, 1984 passed against the workman in exercise of its powers under Section 11 and 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (in short the 'act') and passed the impugned award rejecting the reference made to it by the Karnataka State government. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal on the basis of the points of dispute referred to it, and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, it had framed the issues in addition to the points of dispute and adjudicated the dispute between the parties and passed an award. The issue regarding the validity of domestic enquiry was tried as a preliminary issue and answered the same at paragraph 10 of the award in the negative holding the enquiry conducted by the first respondent is not fair, legal and valid. Having answered the issue No. 1, in favour of the workman, at paragraph 13 of the award it has assigned its reasons while answering the issue No. 2, on appreciation of material evidence on record, adduced by the first respondent and also considered the evidences of MW-1, mw-4 and MW-6, it has recorded its findings holding that the act of misconduct alleged against the workman is proved. Further the Industrial Tribunal has appreciated the evidences on record and it has recorded its findings assigning valid reasons at paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 17 of the award. The petitioner-workman himself has admitted the material documents placed on record, with regard to the charges made against him. Added to this the evidence of MW-5 and MW-6 corroborates the charges he made against the petitioner/workman on the basis of the material evidence placed on record by them. The Industrial Tribunal has also considered the evidence of mw-4, wherein he had deposed before it that the money was paid to the Driver Mr. Basappa, the petitioner herein, at the time of taking the delivery. As per Ex. M-1, the report of MW-4, he has paid the money to the petitioner. The Industrial Tribunal has also considered the evidence of mw-4, wherein he had deposed before it that the money was paid to the Driver Mr. Basappa, the petitioner herein, at the time of taking the delivery. As per Ex. M-1, the report of MW-4, he has paid the money to the petitioner. Further, it is in his evidence that he told him to give it in writing. The Industrial Tribunal has also considered the documentary evidence of Exhibits M-21, m-22 and M-23 letters received from the parties and Exhibits M-24 to M-29 are the carbon copies of the invoice letters the Parties have signed on the said documents for having received the money from them by the petitioner. As per Ex M-1, the report submitted by MW-4, the manager had called the petitioner, enquired with him, as to whether he had collected money from the parties, he had admitted that the amount was collected by him from the parties and remitted to the office of the first respondent. In that regard, he was asked to give in writing. Accordingly, he had given in writing as per Ex. M-12 and M-17 both in Kannada as well as in english respectively. ( 4 ) IT is the further evidence of MW-4, that petitioner had agreed to pay the amount in instalments to the first respondent. He made two payments of Rs. 700/- and Rs. 800/- as per the receipts Ex. M-18 and M-19. Thereafterwards, the workman wanted permission of two hours to remit the balance amount as per his letter Ex. M-20 which was granted by the management. Thereafterwards, he did not turn up and paid the balance amount. Having waited for 10 days, disciplinary proceedings as initiated by the first respondent against the petitioner by conducting domestic enquiry proceedings under the Certified Standing Orders. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal has considered the elaborate cross examination of MW-4 and it has recorded its findings and held that the charge of misconduct is proved. It has also further considered the material documentary evidence, the note book containing 200 pages maintained by the Company to show that the particulars regarding the collection of the amount made by the petitioner from the various parties and then remitted to the Cashier of the Company with exact denomination tendered in the cash counter with the signature of the cashier. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal on appreciation of evidence on record has recorded the finding, holding that the charge of misappropriation is proved against the workman. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr. M. B. Nargund very vehemently contended before this Court that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are erroneous in law as the same are contrary to the material evidence on record. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are erroneous in law. After having gone through the entire award and the evidence produced in this case before the Tribunal it is not possible for this Court to accept the various contentions urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner/workman, hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the award passed by the Labour Court is vitiated in law, is not tenable and the same cannot be accepted. ( 7 ) FURTHER having regard to the documentary evidence referred to in the award, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in recording the findings on facts and on the basis of positive and substantive evidence on record holding that the charges made against the workman are proved. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that certain documents namely the Log book and other documents were summoned, but the same were not produced. Therefore he would submits that the Tribunal could have drawn adverse inference against the Company for non-production of the material documents before it according to him. This contention of the learned counsel also must fail, in view of the documents referred to Tribunal at paragraph 17 of the award wherein the petitioner has admitted the charges. Therefore summoning of the documents referred to above were wholly irrelevant and unnecessary to answer the points of dispute referred to the Tribunal for its adjudication. The Tribunal has passed a well considered award by assigning valid and cogent reasons in support of its findings, after proper appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore summoning of the documents referred to above were wholly irrelevant and unnecessary to answer the points of dispute referred to the Tribunal for its adjudication. The Tribunal has passed a well considered award by assigning valid and cogent reasons in support of its findings, after proper appreciation of evidence on record. ( 9 ) IN this view of the matter, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction, the findings recorded on the basis of facts and evidence on record by the Tribunal shall not be disturbed unless it is pointed out from the material evidence on record that the findings are recorded by the Tribunal contrary to the material evidence on record or the evidence on record in favour of the workman has not been taken into consideration while passing the award. In the instant case, either of the ground exists to a null the findings recorded by the tribunal. Therefore, I have to hold that the findings recorded by the Tribunal is perfectly legal and valid which need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction and power. ( 10 ) THE various contentions urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the workman, assuming for the sake of argument that the misconduct is proved, the Tribunal has got a statutory duty to find out as to whether the punishment of dismissal passed against the workmen was warranted or not in this case should have considered by the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 11a of the Act and recorded its findings in this regard. In this regard, the submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct and the same shall be accepted. The Industrial tribunal should have exercised its power under Section 11a of the Act and recorded its finding as to whether it is a fit case to exercise its discretionary power and recorded its finding in this regard. Merely because, the Tribunal has not exercised its power under Section 11a of the Act, the case need not be remitted back to the second respondent-Tribunal for its consideration of the case of the workman under Section 11a of the Act, for the reason that the charge of misappropriation is a very serious charge. And further, he has admitted the guilt by making the payment to the first Respondent as per Ex. And further, he has admitted the guilt by making the payment to the first Respondent as per Ex. M-18 and M-19, these documents are considered by the Tribunal and recorded its findings holding that charges are proved against the petitioner. Further the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Company Ms. Shuba Kasturi submits that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the Court can exercise its power and can grant the appropriate relief by awarding monetary benefits, instead of remitting back the case to the Tribunal for exercise of its power under Section 11a of the Act. ( 11 ) IN my considered view, for the reasons recorded by the Tribunal holding that the charges are proved and the said findings are not erroneous in law therefore this is not a fit case to set aside the order of dismissal either to remit back the matter to the Industrial Tribunal or set aside the order of dismissal by this Court, but justice would be met to both the parties if an award of reasonable compensation is awarded with a view to rehabilitate the workman by awarding a Sum of Rs. 50,000/- to him. Therefore, it would be proper for this Court to award an appropriate monetary benefit to the workman on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent in this regard. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this Court need not interfere with the findings recorded by the industrial Tribunal in holding that the misconduct is proved. This Court in exercise of its power for the reasons stated above the first respondent-management is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as ex gratia payment to the petitioner for his rehabilitation. ( 13 ) WITH the above said modification of the award, this writ petition is dismissed.