JUDGMENT : A.P. SHAH, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the Award Part I and Part II dated January 18, 1995 and May 3, 1995 passed by the 9th Labour Court, at Mumbai in reference (IDA) No. 1035 of 1989 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The 1st respondent is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is a Government of India Undertaking. The petitioner's husband Shashikant Mestry was working as Assistant in Imports and Distribution Department of the 1st Respondent at its registered office since 1968. In 1986 said Shashikant (hereinafter referred to as ‘workman’) was charge-sheeted alleging that he had falsely claimed Leave Travel Concession without undertaking the journey. In reply the workman denied that he had not undertaken the journey. He led evidence to show that he had gone on pilgrimage to different holy places in Maharashtra. 3. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the workman had in fact undertaken the journey to various places but he held that the workman had not visited Aurangabad and found him guilty of making false claim of LTA. Pursuant to the report of the Enquiry Officer the workman was dismissed from service by order dated July 6, 1988. The workman raised on industrial dispute which came to be processed under the provisions of the Act and was referred to the 9th Labour Court as Reference (IDA) No. 1035 of 1989. The Labour Court passed the Award Part I on January 18, 1995 holding inter alia that the enquiry conducted against the workman was fair, proper and legal and the report of the enquiry officer was not perverse. By Award Part II dated May 3, 1995 the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed on the workman was harsh and totally disproportionate and ordered reinstatement with 30% backwages. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Deshpande learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the workman had given details regarding his journey to Aurangabad and also led evidence of the witnesses to establish that he had in fact travelled to Aurangabad. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Deshpande learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the workman had given details regarding his journey to Aurangabad and also led evidence of the witnesses to establish that he had in fact travelled to Aurangabad. He contended that the report of the Enquiry Officer is totally perverse in asmuchas the enquiry officer has completely ignored the evidence led by the workman to show that he had travelled to all the places including Aurangabad. Mr. Deshpande also brought to my notice that some other employees were charge-sheeted on similar charges but no action was taken by the management against the said employees. Mr. Deshpande contended that the workman was victimised only due to his active participation in union activities. Mr. Deshpande contended that these contentions were specifically raised before the Tribunal but the Tribunal has not cared to deal with the same. He submitted that the Award Part I passed by the Tribunal is virtually a non-speaking award. 5. There appears to be some merit in the contention of Mr. Deshpande. It seems that the learned Judge has not dealt with any of the contentions raised before him by the workman. In the award he simply observed as under: “I have carefully gone through the pleadings, documents, evidence and inquiry proceedings and I found no apparent irregularity committed by the enquiry officer while conducting the enquiry, he has given fair and proper opportunity to defend himself, hence I come to conclusion that the enquiry held against the workman by the company is legal, fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. After going through the materials on records I come to the conclusion that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on legal and acceptable evidence recorded before the E.O.” 6. The Tribunal has failed to deal with various contentions raised by the workman. Ordinarily I would have remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh determination of the dispute. Mr. Cama appearing for the management however, pointed out that the son of the deceased workman has been given employment in the company on compassionate ground. He submitted that the proceedings are pending for last ten years and no purpose would be served by sending the matter to the Labour Court. Mr. Cama appearing for the management however, pointed out that the son of the deceased workman has been given employment in the company on compassionate ground. He submitted that the proceedings are pending for last ten years and no purpose would be served by sending the matter to the Labour Court. In my opinion the ends of justice would be served if the company is directed to pay 50% backwages instead of 30% as awarded by the Labour Court. Accordingly the respondent company is directed to deposit in the Labour Court the differential amount i.e. 20% backwages to be paid to the heirs of the deceased workman within two months from today. 7. Rule is made partly absolute. No order as to costs. Certified copy expedited.