JUDGMENT : JAYASIMHA BABU, J.:— The appellant is the employer. It dismissed two of its employees who were employed in its warehouse in the year 1991 after holding domestic enquiry, wherein it was found that the alleged misconduct had been proved, the misconduct being preparation of more than one delivery challan in respect of same invoices and the delivery of goods under both the delivery challans, resulting in twice the quantity of the goods shown in the invoice being taken out of the warehouse. 2. In the case of one of the workmen, that act was said to have been done twice on the same day in respect of two different invoices and, in respect of the other workman, he had been charged with that act for having done it five times. According to the employer, this misconduct came to light several months after the delivery, when a large shortage was noticed in the stock in the warehouse which shortage was investigated by its internal auditor. 3. The workmen in answer to the chargememos issued to them took the stand that no physical stock had been moved out as a result of the preparation of the second delivery challan. They did not dispute the fact that they had in fact prepared second delivery challan in respect of same invoice. 4. At the enquiry, the management examine three witnesses: sales officer, the officer-in-charge of the warehouse, and the internal auditor. The sales officer spoke to the fact that the workmen had prepared these second delivery challans in respect of same invoice and had despatched the goods. M.W. 2, as also M.W. 3 stated that after second delivery challan had been prepared, goods had been delivered to the cart-men whose thumb impression was found on those challans and that payment had also been made to the transporter. Those documents were produced at the enquiry. 5. The workmen having raised an industrial dispute after their dismissal, the Labour Court which dealt with those references held that the employer had held a proper domestic enquiry. It observed that those workmen could be held to be exclusively responsible for the removal of the goods from the warehouse under more than one challan for the same invoice and that such removal must have been effected in complicity with unknown others against whom no action had been taken. 6. It observed that those workmen could be held to be exclusively responsible for the removal of the goods from the warehouse under more than one challan for the same invoice and that such removal must have been effected in complicity with unknown others against whom no action had been taken. 6. It was also held by the Labour Court that there was nothing to show that the workmen had gained anything by preparing the second delivery challan for the same invoice, and that there was no proof of any misappropriation of goods on their part. It also held further that the person in whose favour the invoice was drawn and to whom presumably the goods were delivered was not examined, as also the cartmen or the transporter to whom the goods were said to have been entrusted for delivery. The Labour Court concluded that having regard to the admission of the workmen that they had prepared more than one delivery challan in respect of the same invoice, it could not be said that they were completely innocent. It was of the view that the guilt was only by way of negligence and not by way of committing any fraudulent act. The workmen were directed to be reinstated without back-wages. 7. The learned Single Judge having rejected the employers' writ petition challenging that award, the employer is before us in appeal. 8. It was submitted for the employer that this is a case of fraud, as the workmen have admitted that they have prepared more than one delivery challan in respect of same invoice, and they were also persons who were instrumental for the removal of the goods from the godown. The documents produced at the enquiry, it was submitted, clearly showed that the goods, in fact, had been removed, and that payments had been made to the cartmen, as also to the transporter. Counsel also submitted that there were inconsistent expressions of opinion in the award - in one place the Labour Court having held that fraud had been committed, while in another place, it was held that it was only a case of negligence. Counsel also submitted that there were inconsistent expressions of opinion in the award - in one place the Labour Court having held that fraud had been committed, while in another place, it was held that it was only a case of negligence. Counsel submitted that in the case of one workmen, he had prepared two delivery challans in respect of same invoice on the same day in a very short interval as could be seen from the number of delivery challans, one being No. 623 and the other being No. 626, and that such conduct on the part of the workmen could not have been explained away as an instance of negligence. 9. Counsel also submitted that the evidence of M.W. 2 had been misread by the Labour Court, inasmuch as M.W. 2 has clearly stated that though normally such removal on the basis of the second delivery challan is not possible in case of mere negligence, the removal had in fact occurred. The Labour Court, it was submitted, could not have deduced there from that it was not at all possible to prepare a second delivery challan, or to remove the goods from the warehouse on the basis of such second delivery challan in respect of the same invoice. 10. It was his further submission that under S. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act though the Tribunal has discretion in the matter of reassessing the evidence at the domestic enquiry and also in deciding upon the quantum of punishment having regard to the gravity of the offence, nevertheless the Labour Court has a duty to set out sufficient and cogent reasons for invoking that power and that, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Engine volves, Ltd. v. Labour Court [1991 (1) L.L.N. 268], the Labour Court or the Tribunal was under a duty to consider the expediency of reinstatement and as to why compensation would not be an adequate substitute for the same. Counsel submitted that the Labour Court had failed to advert to this aspect when it straightaway proceeded to direct reinstatement. 11. Counsel submitted that the Labour Court had failed to advert to this aspect when it straightaway proceeded to direct reinstatement. 11. Counsel also brought to our notice the fact that the depot in which the workmen were working is no longer being operated by the employer, as all the workmen who had been employed in it had been the benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme, and that thereafter, the operations are being carried out by a Clearing and Forwarding Agent. 12. Counsel stressed the fact that having regard to the nature of the misconduct that had been alleged and had been proved, it was most inexpedient to direct reinstatement of those workmen who had already received by way of wages under S. 17-B of the Act substantial sums in one case Rs. 1,80,000 and in another Rs. 1,95,000 till date. 13. Counsel for the workmen on the other hand submitted that the workmen were merely subordinates who carried out the dictates of their Masters, that they could not have done anything independent of their own volition, that the removal of the goods from the godown on the basis of the second delivery challan is not possible and that the workmen were rightly directed to be reinstated by the Labour Court. 14. The misconduct alleged against the workmen in these cases is the preparation of a document which is hot contemplated, viz., the second delivery challan against the same invoice which resulted in the removal of a larger quantity of goods than what had been invoiced for. The preparation of two delivery challans in respect of same invoice within a short time on the same day cannot be explained away merely as negligence. Although the Labour Court has ultimated regarded this as negligence, the enquiry officer did not regard it so. The report of the enquiry was not found to be in any way faulty, nor was the assessment of the evidence made by the enquiry officer found to be not in accordance with law. 15. Although in these cases, it cannot be said that there is evidence of misappropriation, nevertheless the acts which the workmen have been found to have indulged in are clearly indicative of complicity in an effort to cause loss to the employer, such loss being caused not by reason of any innocent negligent act but, by reason of a deliberate and planned effort. It is difficult to accept the explanation that the workmen who had put in many years in the same godown would not have immediately recognised that a delivery challan had already been prepared for an invoice when second delivery challan was either placed before them, or they on their own had commenced preparing one. That act on the part of the workmen is clearly indicative of pre-planning. 16. The Labour Court, in the circumstances, ought to have examined the question as to whether it was at all desirable or expedient to compel the employer to reinstate such workmen whose acts were such to justify the loss of confidence in those employees. Persons, who were required to monitor and ensure that only goods that are properly accounted for are removed, instead of doing that, themselves become instrumental in causing removal of larger quantity than what was required to be removed in terms of the invoice. The loss of confidence in them on the part of the employer would be a factor which was required to be taken into account while considering the expedience or otherwise of reinstating such workmen in the service of the employer. 17. We have been informed by counsel that when the employer stopped running the depot directly with effect from 8 October, 1994, a voluntary retirement scheme was in force of which benefit was taken by all those who Were at that time employed in that depot. 18. Instead of reinstatement, the employer shall pay to these workmen full wages from the date of the order of dismissal till the date of closure of the depot, viz., 8 October, 1994; treat these workmen also as having obtained voluntary retirement and give them the monetary benefits as given to others under that scheme, and also pay them the amount which they would have been eligible to receive as gratuity. 19. Counsel for the workmen submitted that the workmen had been suspended on 30 July, 1990. If full wages had not paid to them from that date till date of dismissal, full wages for the period up to the date of the order of dismissal, after deducting the subsistence allowance, if any paid, shall be paid. Needless to state, these payments will be in addition to the amounts paid to the workmen under S. 17-B of the Act. Needless to state, these payments will be in addition to the amounts paid to the workmen under S. 17-B of the Act. The order of the Labour Court shall stand modified to this extent. 20. The writ appeals and ordered accordingly. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 21171 and 21172 of 1999 are closed.