A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) THE workman, Surinder Malik, was employed as a Clerk by M/s. K. G. Khosla compressors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'management' ). On the allegations that the workman had committed some serious acts of misconduct relating to interpolation of the accounts, an enquiry was held against him. In the enquiry charges leveled against the workman were held to be proved and he was accordingly awarded the punishment of dismissal. The workman raised industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication vide notification dated 19th December 1981 with the following terms :- "whether the services of Shri Surender malik were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard. " ( 2 ) SINCE it was a case of departmental enquiry, one of the issues framed was as to whether the enquiry conducted against the workman was fair and proper. Evidence was led on this issue by both the parties and vide order dated 25th January 1992 the learned labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry held against the workman was proper and valid. Para 20 of the said order returning this finding reads as under:- "20. The enquiry report and enquiry proceedings are indicative of the fact that due opportunity was accorded to shri Malik to cross examine the management witnesses and to produce his defence. More than reasonable opportunities was accorded to him to testify in his own defence. The principle of natural justice were followed and no prejudice was caused on the workman in conclusion of the enquiry. No bias has been allowed against the enquiry officer. Perusal of the enquiry report ex. MW 1/4 persuade me to conclude that the enquiry was conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice, fair play and good concerns. " ( 3 ) HOWEVER, in the same order the learned labour Court observed that the Factory manager, Kalkaji Compressor Works, a unit of the management was not competent to impose the penalty of dismissal. He relied upon the standing orders of the company as per which, punishment of dismissal could be imposed by the "employer". Holding that the Factory Manager, although he was competent to initiate the departmental proceedings, was not competent to impose the penalty of dismissal as he was not the "employer". He relied upon the standing orders of the company as per which, punishment of dismissal could be imposed by the "employer". Holding that the Factory Manager, although he was competent to initiate the departmental proceedings, was not competent to impose the penalty of dismissal as he was not the "employer". He also did not agree with the submission of the management that order was validated as the aforesaid act of the factory Manager was ratified by the management/company as well. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER the the Labour Court assumed itself the role of disciplinary authority, as required under Section 11a of the Industrial disputes Act (in short the 'act') and went into the question as to whether, having regard to the nature of charges, the punishment of dismissal is proper or not. After hearing the parties on this issue the impugned award dated 1st October 1993 has been rendered by the learned Labour Court. Going by the seriousness of the charges levelled and proved against the workman, the Labour Court was of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal was proper and commensurate with the gravity of the offence. This discussion can be found in paras 15 to 17 of the impugned a ward:- "15. In employment the extreme punishment is dismissal while the minor penalty may be warning, censure, suspension, loss of increments and reductions in ranks, etc. The question which arises in number of cases is what are the circumstances when a serious view can be taken and the extreme punishment is justified. This depends upon the number of factors. The employer is more interested in efficient functioning of his business which is conducted by the workman concerned, his co-employees with the aid of departmental officers, building, raw materials and machineries, etc. Any harm to the aforesaid factors of production, which has effect of disabling the employer to carry on the business in an efficient manner, must necessarily be viewed very seriously. Similar is the case of act which though not disable the employer from efficient carrying on the business yet are fraught with extreme risks to the business. Such acts are also considered as very serious misconduct. Similar is the case of act which though not disable the employer from efficient carrying on the business yet are fraught with extreme risks to the business. Such acts are also considered as very serious misconduct. In analysing the mass of conflicting cases of disabling conduct, two guiding principles must always be kept in mind namely, the law of industrial discipline never punishes damage without fault, it never immunizes faults which create a risk because no damage materialises. The seriousness of a conduct is viewed not from any moral or social point of view but from the point of view of its effects. actual or likely, on the business itself. 16. There are number of misconduct which involves more or less some degree of dishonesty such as misappropriation of employers money, breach of trust, theft, wrongly recording more issue of items from the store fraudulently showing more production when payment is made on piece rate basis, giving inflated bills of expensas, etc. All such misconducts are considered serious. In such instances no employer will be willing to keep dishonest employee and he is bound to loose faith in him. In case of dishonesty the mere fact that the property involved was not of considerable value does not lessen the gravity of the offence. Normally charges of such misconduct, if duly proved, would be followed by dismissal. Though dismissal is a serious step, but if an act of this sort is condoned or met with a lesser punishment, the effect on discipline would be unfortunate. If judicial precedents are required one can place reliance on Fertilizer and Chemicals travancore Ltd. (1951 (ii) LLJ 211) and Moradabad Water Supply Co. (1951 (ii) LU 296 ). 17. In the instant case the claimant has interpolated with the requisition slips and shown more oil, diesel and lubricants issued then the requisitioned quantity. The quantity so saved was misappropriated by the claimant himself, thus the act committed by the claimant was a grave and serious misconduct and such an employee cannot be meted out with a lesser penalty then dismissal. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the penalty of dismissal is proportionate and appropriate to the act of misconduct committed by the claimant. Hence, I award a penalty of dismissal to the claimant. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the penalty of dismissal is proportionate and appropriate to the act of misconduct committed by the claimant. Hence, I award a penalty of dismissal to the claimant. " ( 5 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the aforesaid finding and recording that penalty of dismissal was proper, the Labour Court held that the workman would be entitled for his wages from the date of dismissal till the date of the award in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gujarat Steel Tube Ltd. Vs. Its mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1980 SC 1896 and desh Raj Gupta Vs. Industrial Tribunal iv, UP, Lucknow and another, AIR 1990 sc 2174 . However, treating the age of superannuation as 65 years, the back wages were restricted from the date of dismissal till the date the workman attained the age of 65 years. ( 6 ) THE Management has filed WP (C) No. 280/94 challenging the portion of the award whereby the Labour Court has granted the workman benefit of wages from the date of dismissal till the date he attained the age of 65 years. The legality of order dated 25th january 1992 is also challenged on the ground that the Factory Manager was the "employer" and competent to impose the punishment and in any case due to ratification of his act by the company, the said order became that of the company and, therefore, could not be faulted with. ( 7 ) ON the other hand the workman has filed wp (C) No. 2842/94 in which the award of the Labour Court is challenged by contending that once the enquiry was held to be vitiated, the workman should have been granted relief of reinstatement with back wages. ( 8 ) IT may be noted from para 14 of the award that since the order of dismissal passed by the Factory Manager was found to be illegal, the Labour Court proceeded "to determine as to what penalty is proper and appropriate to the guilt of the claimant, while exercising my powers contained in Section 11a of the Act". Admittedly, the Labour court was competent to undertake this exercise, as Labour Court has the power even to examine as to whether the charges are proved, and if proved the penalty imposed is proper. Admittedly, the Labour court was competent to undertake this exercise, as Labour Court has the power even to examine as to whether the charges are proved, and if proved the penalty imposed is proper. The Labour Court can modify the penalty and even reduce it, if it is of the opinion that penalty imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. It is precisely this exercise he undertook and found that the charges were serious enough to warrant the penalty of dismissal and the labour Court itself awarded this penalty of dismissal to the workman as would be clear from para 17 of the impugned award. ( 9 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the penalty of dismissal by the Labour Court, the reason which persuaded the Labour Court to grant the award from the date of dismissal till the age the workman attained the age of 65 years was the aforesaid two judgments of the supreme Court came to the conclusion that once the punishment is imposed by the labour Court, it will be effective from the date of the award and, therefore, for the past period wages will have to be awarded to the concerned workman. Thus, the two judgments, however, came up for consideration before the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab dairy Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kala Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2661 . In this case the ratio of Desh Raj Gupta (supra) was specifically overruled and following the earlier judgment of the Constitution Bench in P. H. Kalyani Vs. M/s. Air France, AIR 1963 SC 1356 , in para 2 of the judgment it was held as under:- "2. In view of the aforesaid decision and in view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court, we are of the considered opinion that the view expressed in Desh Raj Gupta's case ( AIR 1990 SC 2174 ) is not correct. It is accordingly overruled. Following the judgment of the Constitution Bench, we hold that on the Labour Court's recording a finding that the domestic enquiry was defective and giving opportunity to adduce the evidence by the Management and the workman and recording of the finding that the dismissal by the management was valid, it would relate back to the date of the original dismissal and not from the date of the judgment of the Labour Court. " ( 10 ) WE may note that this was the view of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Thiruvirkolam Vs. Presiding Officer and anr. (1997) 1 SCC 9 as well clearly holding that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in P. H. Kalyani (supra) the decision in Desh Raj Gupta (supra) could not be treated as an authority on the point. The impugned award directing management to pay wages from the date of dismissal till the date the workman attained the age of 65 years, therefore, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. In view of this finding, it is not necessary to go into the other questions raised in the petition filed by the management. The writ petition filed by the management is accordingly allowed and rule made absolute. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the workman is hereby dismissed.