Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the Award passed by the second Respondent in I.D.No.994/1998 dated 29.02.2000 and quash the same.) The Petitioner Society seeks Writ of Certiorari to quash the Award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.994/1998 dated 29.02.2000. 2. Facts which led to the filing of the Writ Petition are stated as follows ::- The Petitioner was employed in Petitioner Society as Salesman on Temporary Basis in 1984. While so, a shortage of Rs.4,776.10 was noticed by the Petitioner Society and the first Respondent was asked to make good the deficit. The first Respondent did not do so. According to the Petitioner Society, the first Respondent has absconded from July 1987. 2.1. In 1995, nearly after eight years, the first Respondent filed Petition before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, seeking for subsistence allowance in P.S.A.No.49/1995 on the ground that he has been placed under suspension from 31.07.1987 to 28.02.1995. After going through the entire records, and after elaborate discussion, the Assistant Commissioner Labour found that the first Respondent has manipulated the document and dismissed the Petition claiming subsistence allowance. 2.2. Thereafter, the first Respondent has raised Industrial Dispute and filed I.D.No.994/1998 before the Labour Court seeking reinstatement. Since Board of the Petitioner Society was superseded on 29.10.1998, the Society could not effectively defend the above I.D. and as a result of the same, the Labour Court passed the exparte Award on 29.02.2000. The Board was restored on 04.06.1999. According to the Petitioner Society, only when the letter was received from the Government enclosing the Award of the Labour Court, the Petitioner Society came to know about the exparte Award passed. Stating that the Labour Court has erroneously ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages, which is impermissible in the eye of law, the Petitioner Society has filed this Writ Petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Society, drawing the attention of the Court to the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, submitted that the Labour Court has not kept in view the delay on the part of the first Respondent in approaching the Labour Court. It was further contended that the Labour Court has not properly analysed the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. It was further contended that the Labour Court has not properly analysed the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The Award of the Labour Court is challenged contending that its conclusion is based on assumptions and presumptions and the same cannot be enforced. 4. Submitting that the employment of the first Respondent is not disputed, the learned Counsel for the first Respondent has submitted that when the Society has not adduced any evidence before the Labour Court, it is not open to the Petitioner Society to challenge the Award. The learned Counsel for the first Respondent further submitted that when the Award of the Labour Court is based upon the evidence and when the Labour Court has exercised its discretion in ordering reinstatement with 50% backwages, the High Court cannot interfere with the same. 5. I have carefully considered the averments in the affidavit and the submissions of both parties. 6. Even at the outset, the delay in raising the Industrial Dispute is to be pointed out. On 31.07.1987, the Petitioner Society issued Notice calling upon the first Respondent to pay the deficit of Rs.4,776.10. The first Respondent has not responded. Nearly eight years thereafter, the first Respondent has filed the claim under Rule 5(1) of Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Rules, claiming subsistence allowance for the period from 31.07.1987 to 28.02.1995. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour in a detailed order pointed out that the first Respondent has manipulated the documents. Ex.P-2 is the Notice of the Special Officer dated 31.07.1987 served upon the first Respondent. Ex.R-1 is the office copy/carbon copy of the Notice dated 31.07.1987. By a comparison of Ex.P-2 and Ex.R-1, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour found that the words do not find place in Ex.R-1 but have been clandestinely included in Ex.P-2 utilising the space available. Pointing out the fabrication of Ex.P-2, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour dismissed the Claim Petition for subsistence allowance. 7. The Order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was brushed aside by the Labour Court holding that the order is not a well considered one since the disputed document Ex.P-2 was not referred to the Handwriting Expert for obtaining opinion. This Court is of the view that the Labour Court was not justified in taking a contrary view on the factual findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. 8. This Court is of the view that the Labour Court was not justified in taking a contrary view on the factual findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. 8. The Labour Court has not at all adverted to the delay in raising the industrial dispute. The Tribunal has proceeded to pass the Award solely on the ground that the Petitioner Society did not appear. In the affidavit, the Petitioner Society has averred that the Board was superseded on 29.10.1998 and the Board was restored only on 04.06.1999. It is further stated that the then Special Officer who was in charge of the administration of the Society indulged in many irregularities and using his short tenure, he has reinstated the employee who was under suspension, dropping the disciplinary proceedings. The reason stated by the Management for non appearance before the Labour Court is convincing and acceptable. 9. The wide discretionary power vested in the tribunal under Section 11A of the Act are to be exercised in a judicious manner. The power has to be exercised only when the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of dismissal was not justified. Before ordering reinstatement, the Tribunal has to take into consideration various factors like the total length of service rendered by the employee, nature of charges etc. When the first Respondent has not made good the loss and has abandoned duty, the Labour Court was not justified in ordering reinstatement with 50% back wages. No indulgence could be shown to a person found guilty of grave misconduct or misappropriation of the Society's fund and abandonment of duty. 10. By a reading of the Award of the Labour Court, it is seen that the Labour Court has gone far beyond to order reinstatement. The Writ Court can interfere and cannot be content by simply saying that since the tribunal has exercised its discretion, it will not examine the circumstances of the case to ascertain whether or not such power was exercised in accordance with the well settled principles. If the writ Court was not to do so, it would be a refusal on its part to exercise its jurisdiction. In 1980 (1) LLJ 137 [Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., Vs. If the writ Court was not to do so, it would be a refusal on its part to exercise its jurisdiction. In 1980 (1) LLJ 137 [Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha], the Supreme Court has held that writ Court can itself reassess the evidence on record and can come to a conclusion which the tribunal was empowered to arrive at in exercise of its powers under S.11A of the act, where the Award suffers from a fundamental flaw. 11. The first Respondent has not raised the dispute for nearly 11 years. The Labour Court is not justified in ignoring the delay in raising the Industrial Dispute or that the termination is illegal. It was also not known whether the first Respondent was gainfully employed during the period. Once the charge of deficit was proved and the first Respondent has not made good the loss, whether it is a small or large amount, there is no question of showing sympathy or ordering reinstatement of the employee into the service. In 1998 (1) LLN 70 [Anna Transport Corporation Vs. Labour Court], Justice R.Jayasima Babu while setting aside the order of the Labour Court held that the discretion vested with the Labour Court under Section 11 A was not meant to be equated to charity. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. 12. The Writ Petition is allowed and the Award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.994/1998 dated 29.02.2000 is set aside. W.M.P.No.273 of 2001 is closed.