ORDER A.P. Shah, J.-The petitioner has entered the services of the 1st respondent company as a store man in the year 1968 and thereafter he was promoted as senior storekeeper from March 1, 1985. On August 5, 1986 the clearance contractor's lorry was sent to offshore yard of the company for loading the rubbish for clearance. It seems that at that time the petitioner alongwith another security man were asked to supervise the loading operation in order to ensure that only rubbish and nothing else was loaded in the truck. A surprise check was carried out at the gate and it was found that M. S. scrap weighing about 1600 kgs (1.6 metric tonne) approximately costing at Rs. 7761/- was hidden in the lorry. The petitioner was found responsible for the same and was charge-sheeted on August 6, 1986. A domestic enquiry was conducted against the petitioner under Standing Order 22(4) and (12) and upon perusal of the report of the enquiry officer who found the petitioner guilty on both counts of misconducts, the company dismissed the petitioner from services vide its order dated December 11, 1986. 2. The petitioner raised on Industrial Dispute for reinstatement in service with backwages which came to be referred to the 2nd Labour Court, Mumbai. The Labour Court vide Award Part I dated January 31, 1989 held that the enquiry was fair and proper. By Award Part II dated April 12, 1994 the Labour Court held that the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement or backwages. The legality and validity of these two awards is impugned in this petition. 3. Mr. Pillai, the learned counsel for the petitioner made mainly three submissions. In the first place Mr. Pillai submitted that the enquiry officer's report was not served upon the petitioner and this amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Pillai submitted that under the Standing Orders, the Company ought to have issued 2nd show cause notice to the petitioner before awarding the punishment of dismissal and in the absence of such a show cause notice and the failure by the company to serve the enquiry officer's report to the petitioner has vitiated the entire enquiry proceedings. Mr. Mr. Pillai submitted that under the Standing Orders, the Company ought to have issued 2nd show cause notice to the petitioner before awarding the punishment of dismissal and in the absence of such a show cause notice and the failure by the company to serve the enquiry officer's report to the petitioner has vitiated the entire enquiry proceedings. Mr. Pillai submitted that the preliminary enquiry report ought to have been served on the petitioner either alongwith the charge-sheet or before the enquiry was commenced and failure to do so has also rendered the enquiry proceedings illegal. In support of his submission Mr. Pillai relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court reported in The Management of Eswaran and Sons Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. III Addi. Labour Court, Madras and another, (1997) 1 LLJ 698 . The second submission of Mr. Pillai is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The Management and Others, AIR 1973 SC 1227 . Mr. Pillai submitted that in Firestone's case the Supreme Court has laid down that u/s 11-A the Tribunal is empowered to consider not only whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct, but also to differ from the said finding, if a proper case is made out. Mr. Pillai urged that the Labour Court merely concurred with the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer without even ascertaining whether the alleged misconduct in the charge-sheet itself was established by evidence against the petitioner. Mr. Pillai submitted that the Labour Court ought to have independently appraised the evidence produced before the enquiry officer and come to his own conclusion. Lastly Mr. Pillai submitted that there is no direct evidence that the petitioner has either singly or with the help of his colleagues committed theft, fraud or dishonesty. At the highest the petitioner can be said to be guilty of negligence. Therefore according to the learned counsel the findings of the enquiry officer that the charge of dishonesty and theft etc. was proved, is totally perverse. 4. Mr. Rele learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 company in reply, contended that since in the present case the order of dismissal was passed prior to Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case, the requirement of service of the enquiry officer's report cannot be said to be mandatory. Mr. was proved, is totally perverse. 4. Mr. Rele learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 company in reply, contended that since in the present case the order of dismissal was passed prior to Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case, the requirement of service of the enquiry officer's report cannot be said to be mandatory. Mr. Rele submitted that the Standing Orders do not contemplate any 2nd hearing and as such no hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing of the dismissal order. According to Mr. Rele in the instant case the workman was found guilty of serious misconduct and, therefore, after taking into consideration his past record and in accordance with the Standing Orders, the order of dismissal, was passed by the company. Mr. Rele brought to my notice the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. T.C. Shrivastava and Others, AIR 1984 SC 1227 in support of his submission that the 2nd show cause notice is not necessary. Mr, Rele contended that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the relevant material on record and recorded a specific finding that the charges were proved against the petitioner. Mr. Rele submitted that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse. 5. In the instant case the employee concerned was proceeded against by the charge-sheet dated August 5, 1986. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated November 29, 1986 and upon consideration of the report the management passed the order of dismissal. In the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., AIR 1994 SC 1074 , the Supreme Court has held that the law laid down in Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 would apply prospectively and no order of punishment passed before that date would be challengeable on the ground that there was a failure to furnish enquiry report to the delinquent employee. The proceedings pending in Courts/Tribunals in respect of orders of punishment passed prior to November 20, 1990 will have to be decided according to the law that prevailed prior to the said date and not according to the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case. In view of this, the argument that the enquiry was vitiated on the ground of non-furnishing of the enquiry report, must be rejected. 6. Ramzan Khan's case. In view of this, the argument that the enquiry was vitiated on the ground of non-furnishing of the enquiry report, must be rejected. 6. It is an admitted position that under Standing Orders there is no provision for giving 2nd hearing. In Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (supra) it was held that neither under the ordinary law of the land nor under industrial law a second opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment is necessary. This of course does not mean that the Standing Orders may not provide for the same but unless the Standing Orders either expressly or by necessary implication provide for the same, no enquiry which is otherwise fair and valid, would be vitiated by not offering of such 2nd hearing. Standing Order 23(6) provides that in awarding punishment under the Standing Order the management shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record if any, of the workmen and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist. From this Standing Order it is not possible to infer that the 2nd show cause notice was necessary before the order of dismissal was passed. The Standing Order 23(6) merely provides that the employer shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, previous record, and any extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist. It does not mean that it is obligatory on the part of the employer to hear the workman on the question of punishment. On the plain reading of the relevant Standing Order no opportunity of 2nd hearing before passing the final order is attracted either expressly or by necessary implication. 7. Reliance placed on the decision of Madras High Court in the case .of the Management of Eswaran and Sons Engineers (P) Ltd. (supra) is also misconceived. In that case the employee was charge-sheeted for using abusive language and extreme penalty of dismissal was imposed upon the delinquent because the management observed from the past record of the employee that he has been warned for similar behaviour on the earlier occasion apart from having been fined Rs. 40/-by the Magistrate for a criminal offence outside the gates of the company namely disorderly behaviour in a public place. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the extreme penalty was ordered only because of the past record of service relating to certain warnings issued to the worker. 40/-by the Magistrate for a criminal offence outside the gates of the company namely disorderly behaviour in a public place. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the extreme penalty was ordered only because of the past record of service relating to certain warnings issued to the worker. In such a situation the management should have heard the employee on the question of punishment and particularly when the past record is made basis for the order of dismissal. In the instant case the petitioner was found guilty of serious misconduct of theft and dishonesty. He was asked to supervise over the loading operation of the clearance of rubbish. It is not disputed that large quantity of M.S. scrap was found in the truck when the surprise check was carried out by the officers of company. Under the circumstances I do not think it was necessary for the employer to extend second opportunity of hearing to the workman. 8. The next submission of Mr. Pillai based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Firestone Co.(supra). On perusal of the impugned award it is seen that the Labour Court has elaborately dealt with this issue in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment. The Labour Court has found that the charges have been established against the workman. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have gone through the original record. I do not find any substance in the submissions of Mr. Pillai that the charge of misconduct has not been proved. The company examined 5 witnesses in the enquiry. The material placed on record clearly indicate that the petitioner was involved in unauthorised loading of M.S. scrap in the truck. Under these circumstances no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.