Judgment :- 1. The petitioners, Veeraiyan and Jagathalaprathaban have joined together and filed the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pursuant to the common award dated 7.3.96 passed in ID Nos. 255 and 256 of 1994 on the file of the 2nd respondent Labour Court and quash that portion of the common award denying backwages to the petitioners and consequently direct the first respondent to pay full backwages as the normal rule being reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages where the charges were held as not proved. 2. Heard Mr. V.Ajoy Ghose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for M/s.T.S. Gopalan & Co., appearing for the first respondent. 3. According to the petitioners, they are Srilankan repatriates resettled as per 1964 Shastri-Srimao agreement and they were provided permanent employment as workmen in the first respondent tea estate, which is a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking. It is claimed that the petitioners were permanent workmen, but being paid daily wages. It is alleged that for active participation in union activities they were being victimised by the supervisory staff and they were charge-sheeted alleging that they have committed theft of 10 Kg. of tea leaves by charge memo dated 5.3.93. It is further stated that the police arrested them for the alleged theft of 10 Kgs. of tender tea leaves and arrested, but they were released on bail. In respect of the charge memo, the petitioners denied the charges. The first respondent/management conducted a domestic enquiry without providing reasonable opportunity or having the assistance of a co-worker and also denied permission to examine their witnesses. 4. It is further contended that without issue of second show cause notice, without affording an opportunity to explain the enquiry report whereby the petitioners have been found guilty of the charges, the first respondent/management issued orders of termination on 24.3.93 holding that the petitioners are guilty of charges. The petitioners raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-(A-2) of The Industrial Disputes Act raising number of contentions. Even though the petitioners sought to raise number of contentions, they restricted their arguments under Section 11-A before the 2nd respondent Labour Court contending that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate and not called for. The petitioners raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-(A-2) of The Industrial Disputes Act raising number of contentions. Even though the petitioners sought to raise number of contentions, they restricted their arguments under Section 11-A before the 2nd respondent Labour Court contending that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate and not called for. The 2nd respondent Labour Court sustained the contention advanced by the petitioners, reappraised the evidence and held that the charges are not proved, but denied backwages by its award dated 7.3.96, while directing reinstatement. 5. It is contended that the 2nd respondent ought not to have deprived backwages and other benefits. Hence the award is being challenged. It is contended that the 2nd respondent having held that both the petitioners were falsely implicated and concluded that the charges were not established, ought to have awarded backwages and other consequential benefits apart from ordering reinstatement. Denial of backwages is unreasonable and illegal. The reasons assigned to deny backwages is unsustainable. The 2nd respondent Labour Court proceeded as if the petitioners are daily-rated workmen and, therefore, they are not entitled for backwages. It is further pointed out that the petitioners were not gainfully employed elsewhere and, therefore, they are entitled for payment of full backwages and denial of backwages is illegal, unfair and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. The first respondent filed a counter denying all the averments. The first respondent tea estate is spread over far and wide in various districts and it has employed watchmen to protect the properties. In the first respondent Division, 12 watchmen are employed. On 22.2.93 information was received that theft of tea leaves being committed and instructions were issued to keep a strict vigil. At about 7.30 p.m., on 22.2.93, the petitioners were found engaged in clandestinely removing a sack full of tea leaves and the 2nd petitioner was caught red-handed by the Corporation employees, but the first petitioner managed to give a slip. The 2nd petitioner was taken to the premises of the Manager, where he had given a statement admitting his guilt. The 2nd petitioner was also produced before the Cherambady Police Station and the first petitioner surrendered himself before the police. 7. Based on the reported theft, a charge memo was issued to the petitioners, to which the petitioners submitted their explanation and they were found not satisfactory. The 2nd petitioner was also produced before the Cherambady Police Station and the first petitioner surrendered himself before the police. 7. Based on the reported theft, a charge memo was issued to the petitioners, to which the petitioners submitted their explanation and they were found not satisfactory. An enquiry was conducted in which six witnesses were examined to establish the charges. In the oral enquiry, the watchman Ramprasad, who apprehended the 2nd petitioner was examined and he has deposed in detail about the incident of theft and apprehension of the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner examined himself and went to the extent of contending that he was coerced to give a statement. The 2nd petitioner further admitted that he was drunk at that time and, therefore, was not in a position to know whether he was enquired at the residence of the Manager or at the office. The enquiry officer reported a finding that the petitioners were guilty of theft and, thereafter, the petitioners were dismissed from service on 24.3.93. 8. The two petitioners raised two separate industrial disputes. The question whether the enquiry was fair and proper was not adverted at all and the 2nd respondent proceeded under Section 11-A of The Industrial Disputes Act and passed a common award on 7.3.96 holding that in the earlier report there was a discrepancy about the quantity of tea leaves that was found stolen and information was available to the field supervisor about the theft, who instructed the watch and ward to keep a vigil, but when the petitioners came to the spot, only the 2nd petitioner alone was apprehended and none of the co-employees were examined to show that tea leaves plucked during the day time was stolen and that the perusal of the report Ex.P-1 would disclose the petitioners being implicated wantonly. The Labour Court further commented that there is no direct evidence to show that the petitioners had plucked and covered the tea leaves and despite police complaint no action has been taken for three years nor a charge sheet has been laid. 9. Ex.M-4 cannot be pressed into service and there is no direct evidence to implicate the petitioners nor to prove that they have committed theft. 9. Ex.M-4 cannot be pressed into service and there is no direct evidence to implicate the petitioners nor to prove that they have committed theft. The Labour Court took into consideration of certain minor discrepancies and proceeded as if the petitioners have been falsely implicated and concluded that the charges against the petitioners were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The 2nd respondent Labour Court also held that the second show cause notice was issued and the order of dismissal did not make a reference to their past conduct and in that view held that the charges were not proved. The 2nd respondent considered the relief to be granted and held that the petitioners were daily-rated workmen and they would be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, but without backwages. 10. The award of the Labour Court has been challenged insofar as the Labour Court had denied the claim of backwages. The first respondent/Management, as a measure of relief to the petitioners, decided not to challenge the award and decided to accept the award and reinstate the petitioners in service. It is contended that none of the reasons assigned by the 2nd respondent to set aside the findings against the petitioners are legally tenable. The award is more lay than legal and it has totally misread the crux of the charge and evidence against the petitioners. The 2nd respondent has not adverted to the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the enquiry officer nor it had in any way scrutinised the findings of the enquiry officer to show that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse, but proceeded in a tangent and adjudicated the dispute in a casual manner. The view of the Labour Court is contrary to Section 11-A. The award insofar as the Labour Court holds that the charges are made out cannot be sustained and it is well open to the first respondent to canvass the correctness of the findings before this Court in the present writ petition though it has not filed a separate writ petition challenging the findings and award. The first respondent held that it should rehabilitate the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners were reinstated. This is emminently a fit case where this Court ought not to interfere with the award of the 2nd respondent in any manner. 11. The first respondent held that it should rehabilitate the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners were reinstated. This is emminently a fit case where this Court ought not to interfere with the award of the 2nd respondent in any manner. 11. It is further contended that the writ petition is belated in that the award was passed on 7.3.96 and the writ petition has been filed only during February 1998 and this delay of two years is fatal. The present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as belated and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Though the workmen are permanent, they are being paid only wages on daily basis. It is incorrect to contend that the petitioners were implicated falsely for their union activities. There is no basis or truth in such an allegation. The plea of victimisation for trade union activities is only a ruse to cover up the misconduct. The view of the Labour Court that confession statement, Ex.M-4 cannot be relied upon as legally unsustainable as the said confession statement has not been challenged, much less immediately retracting the same. The domestic enquiry was conducted fairly in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the petitioners were given ample opportunity to participate and examine witnesses. The petitioners did not challenge the fairness of enquiry, but they only addressed arguments regarding the misconduct. 12. It is true that no second show cause notice was issued, but the petitioners have not claimed any prejudice on that score. The non issue of second show cause notice would not in any way vitiate the order of termination. The award of the 2nd respondent Labour Court insofar as it holds that the charges have not been proved is contrary to law and evidence. The 2nd respondent has not applied its mind properly in appreciating and evaluating the materials available before him and proceeded on mere surmises, inferences and assumptions. Ample materials were placed before the 2nd respondent to establish the charges. It is further submitted that every award ordering reinstatement need not necessarily entail payment of backwages. The charge being theft and being serious in nature, it would not be proper for the 2nd respondent to grant backwages. The grant of backwages would be nothing but a premium for misconduct. The first respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. The charge being theft and being serious in nature, it would not be proper for the 2nd respondent to grant backwages. The grant of backwages would be nothing but a premium for misconduct. The first respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. The only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is :- "Whether the award of the Labour Court in refusing to award backwages is liable to be interfered ?" 14. It has to be pointed out that before the Labour Court, the workmen has specifically confined themselves in respect of the quantum of punishment and invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 11-A. The Labour Court jurisdiction under Section 11-A could be exercised if it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. The Labour Court may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workmen on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workmen including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. In other words, before the Labour Court, neither the workmen has challenged the findings recorded by the domestic enquiry officer nor they have challenged the enquiry officer's report, but merely challenged the quantum of punishment, namely, dismissal. 15. In such circumstances, the approach of the Labour Court in reappreciating the entire matter and picking holes on mere surmises and inferences here and there with respect to the findings reported, this Court is of the considered view is neither called for nor warranted nor justified. The charge being a solitary incident and there being no earlier misconduct on the part of the workmen, the Labour Court would have very well modified the punishment of dismissal and imposed any lesser punishment or grant such relief as the facts of the case may warrant. But the Labour Court, as already pointed out, went into the findings recorded as if it is an appellate authority, though no evidence has been let in, neither there is any material to take a different view than what has been recorded by the disciplinary authority. But the Labour Court, as already pointed out, went into the findings recorded as if it is an appellate authority, though no evidence has been let in, neither there is any material to take a different view than what has been recorded by the disciplinary authority. The Labour Court proceeded as if it is an appellate authority and had picked holes on mere inferences and assumed that the workmen are not guilty of charges. Such an interference on findings is not warranted on the facts of the case. 16. The domestic enquiry officer submitted a report after holding an enquiry, which is fair and not vitiated. That apart, one of the workman has admitted the incident and there is no reason at all to discredit his admission by way of confession and after long years it is not open to the workmen to challenge such confession as vitiated by threat or undue influence or coercion. Merely because the police have not taken action on the complaint, the Labour Court may not be justified in inferring that the workmen are not guilty. Equally so, the Labour Court proceeded on the assumption that the workmen are not guilty, but the evidence of co-workers, namely, watch and ward staff would speak volumes against the workmen. The workmen have been caught red-handed, while they carried the tea leaves already collected and kept at a particular spot. 17. When tea leaves have been collected and kept in a bag or sack in the estate itself, it is not necessary that there must be evidence that tea leaves were collected on the particular date itself. The watchman were waiting for someone to arrive at the scene, lift the bag and commit theft. The workmen have been caught red-handed as deposed by witnesses. Much could be said against the workmen. However, it may not be necessary to examine the findings in detail. It would be sufficient to state that the Labour Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in examining the merits of the charges or the findings reported or the truth or otherwise of the imputations as for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction under Section 11-A it would be sufficient to consider as to whether the charges are grave as to whether the workmen were guilty of other charges or the gravity of the charges. 18. 18. Mr.Karthick, learned counsel for the first respondent sought to contend that it is well open to the respondent/management to canvass findings. There is merit in the contention advanced by the counsel for the respondent/management , but in the light of the view this Court propose to take, it may not be necessary to examine the material evidence with respect to the charges, which the enquiry officer has chosen to accept and the management has accepted the report. That apart, when no prejudice has been established, affording an opportunity to the workmen to explain with respect to the findings reported may not arise at all. Even otherwise, such aspect need not be gone into at this stage. 19. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 11-A, the consideration which should have weighed with the Labour Court with respect to the interference with the quantum, viz., punishment of dismissal or removal, the Labour Court has to examine whether such dismissal or removal is justified or not. In the light of these discussions, this Court holds that the Labour Court is not justified in examining the charges as if it is an appellate authority when no evidence has been let in on the imputations before it and the Labour Court should have proceeded accepting the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and as affirmed by the disciplinary authority. In that view the Labour Court should have examined the quantum of punishment. It may be well open to the Labour Court to set aside the dismissal and order reinstatement or such other punishment as the facts of the case may warrant. In this case, the Labour Court has interfered with the quantum of punishment and directed reinstatement though it has allowed itself to be led by various inferences. Such a finding in my considered view cannot be sustained. It may not be necessary to go into the merits of the findings and it would be just and sufficient to state that the Labour Court has gone in a tangent in recording a finding as if it is an appellate authority and it could reappreciate the evidence already recorded by the domestic enquiry officer. Such is not the position. 20. On the facts it is clear that the first respondent/Management has not chosen to challenge the award with respect to the reinstatement and in fact reinstated the workmen. Such is not the position. 20. On the facts it is clear that the first respondent/Management has not chosen to challenge the award with respect to the reinstatement and in fact reinstated the workmen. To render substantial justice, this Court is of the considered view that on the facts this Court is of the considered view that the workmen, though ordered to be reinstated, they are not entitled for backwages as there is material proof of their being found guilty of imputations and charges framed against them. Even otherwise, on the facts this Court finds that justice has been rendered by declining backwages and in that view, this Court declines to interfere under Article 226. It is not as if payment of backwages is automatic in every case. The management has also acted fairly in reinstating the workmen accepting the award. It cannot be stated that the management has acted vindictively. 21. At any rate, the workmen have approached this Court after a long delay and the objection raised in this respect by the first respondent/management deserves to be sustained. On the facts, the workmen are not justified in claiming backwages. The conclusion that the workmen are not guilty of the imputations or charges by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. 22. In any view of the matter, denial of backwages on the facts of the case cannot be held to be illegal nor the award of the Labour Court in declining backwages is liable to be interfered nor the petitioners are entitled for backwages either in equity or in law. In any view of the matter no interference is called for with the award of the Labour Court. As justice has been rendered this Court declines to issue a writ as prayed for. 23. However, this Court finds that the award was passed on 7.3.96 and the first respondent/Management has reinstated the worker only on 11.12.96. There is no justification to delay reinstatement and, therefore, giving a reasonable time, this Court is of the view that the first respondent/employer should have implemented the award by 1.4.96. 24. 23. However, this Court finds that the award was passed on 7.3.96 and the first respondent/Management has reinstated the worker only on 11.12.96. There is no justification to delay reinstatement and, therefore, giving a reasonable time, this Court is of the view that the first respondent/employer should have implemented the award by 1.4.96. 24. On an overall consideration of the entire matter, this Court, while dismissing of the writ petition with respect to the claim of the workmen for backwages for the period 24.3.93 to 7.3.96, this Court directs the first respondent/management to pay backwages for the limited period commencing from 1.4.96 to 11.12.96, on which date the workmen were reinstated. The first respondent/management is granted two months time from today to pay the backwages for the said period. The parties shall bear their respective costs in this petition.