Judgment :- N.K. Sodhi, Ag., C.J. This order will dispose of two Writ Appeals in which common questions of law and fact arise. 2. The appellant was an employee of the Quilon Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. He was served with a charge-sheet alleging that he had caused shortage of cotton in the bales supplied by one of the suppliers to the management. Another charge was that he fabricated the weighment register to cover up the defalcation of stock caused by him. An enquiry officer was appointed. A domestic enquiry was held in which the appellant was given an opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry officer on a consideration of the material on the record came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the appellant stood proved. The enquiry report was accepted by the management of the Mills and the appellant was dismissed from service. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). 3. On receipt of notice from the Tribunal, the parties put in their respective statements of claim. The stand taken by the workman was that the charges were false and that he was innocent. The reference was contested by the management and it relied upon the enquiry which preceded the order of dismissal. The Industrial Tribunal examined the validity of the enquiry and came to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair and proper in which the delinquent workmen had been afforded full opportunity to defend himself. He was also provided the assistance of a lawyer. The Tribunal while upholding the findings of the enquiry officer observed that the punishment of dismissal from service was too harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the charges proved. Exercising its powers under section 11A of the Act, the order of dismissal was set aside and the workmen was ordered to be reinstated with 50% backwages. It appears that the remaining 50% of the backwages were denied to the workman by way of punishment. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the management and the workman both filed separate writ petitions challenging the said award. It appears that the remaining 50% of the backwages were denied to the workman by way of punishment. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the management and the workman both filed separate writ petitions challenging the said award. The management contended that since the charges leveled against the workman were serious and they stood proved in a domestic enquiry fairness of which had been upheld, the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the management. The workman, on the other hand, urged that the Tribunal having set aside the order of termination should not have deprived him of the remaining 50% backwages. The matter was considered by the learned single Judge. The contention of the management was accepted and the award of the Labour Court set aside insofar as it interfered with the quantum of punishment. The writ petition filed by the management was accordingly allowed and that of the workman dismissed. It is against this order that the workman has come up in appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. The charges leveled against the workman, as already observed, were that he had caused shortage of cotton in the bales supplied by one of the suppliers to the management and that he fabricated the weighment register to cover up the defalcation of stock caused by him. These charges stood proved in the domestic enquiry the validity of which was upheld by the Tribunal itself. The tribunal has discussed the evidence led before it and also before the enquiry officer minutely before it and also before the enquiry proceedings. The question that arises for consideration is, when such serious charges are proved, can any punishment less than the dismissal be imposed on the delinquent employee. The learned single Judge was right in holding that the punishment of dismissal as imposed by the management was the only proper course to be adopted. The charges were indeed serious and dismissal from service was the right punishment to be imposed. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned single Judge. In the result, the writ appeals filed by the workman are dismissed.