Judgment : Heard the arguments of Mr. D. Abdullah for Mr. R. Abdul Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the records. 2. The petitioner/workman raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer and on failure of conciliation, the State Government refused to refer the dispute. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition W.P. No. 2585 of 1983. This Court, by an order dated 17.02.1990, directed the reference of the dispute of non-employment of the petitioner for adjudication. Thereafter, the State Government, by an order dated 16. 1991, referred the dispute for adjudication by the second respondent Labour Court. In this process, ten years of precious time was lost. 3. Even though the petitioner was working in Pallavan Transport Corporation as a Driver since February 1993, subsequently, the said Corporation was re-constituted and the District wing of the said Corporation became two different Corporations and once again, they were merged with the first respondent Corporation. 4. The Labour Court, which took up the dispute as I.D. No. 364 of 1991 and proceeded with the trial, rejected the contention of the first respondent that they were not the employer of the petitioner and that the dispute suffers from non-joinder of parties. But, however, on the merits of the dispute, it held that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper. In that enquiry, six persons were examined and that the workman had cross-examined all the witnesses. Neither he examined himself in the enquiry nor examined any defence witness on his side. The Labour Court also held that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer was proper and the charge that the petitioner had dishonestly attempted to remove the old pistons from the depot was clearly proved. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court held that since it is a charge of attempt to theft, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief and dismissed the I.D. by its Award dated 011. 1997. 5. It also rejected the contention put forth by the petitioner that he was given a posting order to Kancheepuram Depot during the enquiry by exonerating him for the charges. 1997. 5. It also rejected the contention put forth by the petitioner that he was given a posting order to Kancheepuram Depot during the enquiry by exonerating him for the charges. It held that it was not an order of reinstatement exonerating the petitioner from the charges but only a normal transfer and posting order was given to all the employees on the formation of a new Corporation. 6. Mr. D. Abdullah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously contended that there was no evidence implicating the petitioner in the alleged attempt of theft. Further, he also submitted that there was no misconduct enumerated for attempting to steal from the employer under the Standing Orders. In this context, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1985 (1) L.L.J. (SC) 527 [Shri Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and another]. 7. It is not clear as to how the judgment of the Supreme Court will be of any assistance to the petitioner. It is not as if that the petitioner was being dealt with, without there being any misconduct specified under the Standing Orders. On the contrary, the petitioner was charged in terms of the Model Standing Orders prescribed by the State Government. In the relevant Standing Orders, any theft or dishonesty with reference to the employers property is also enumerated as a misconduct. The decision cited by the learned counsel only states that an employee cannot be charge sheeted for misconducts which are not enumerated either in the Service Rules or Standing Orders. This was on account of the fact that the employee must know in advance as to what are the misconducts for which he can be punished. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court to the deposition made by the witnesses in the domestic enquiry. The evidence of M.W.2 Jayavel, who was a bodywasher, had specifically pointed out the accusing finger against the petitioner. Even M.W.4 Security Guard mentioned about a package being thrown out of the bus driven by the petitioner. There was no confusion over the identity of the material object sought to be removed from the depot and also the circumstantial evidence directly pointing out the accusing finger against the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter argued that he was not given the copies of the preliminary report and, therefore, the enquiry is vitiated. There was no confusion over the identity of the material object sought to be removed from the depot and also the circumstantial evidence directly pointing out the accusing finger against the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter argued that he was not given the copies of the preliminary report and, therefore, the enquiry is vitiated. In the present case, before the Labour Court, the entire enquiry proceedings were filed and marked with consent and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was prejudiced by the non-furnishing of the preliminary enquiry report. Therefore, his reliance placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (1) M.L.J. 48 [R.M. Palaniappan v. The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai and others] has no relevance to the facts of the present case. 10. When once it is established that the petitioner was guilty of a serious misconduct, that too, attempting to steal the employers property, then he cannot be heard to say that he is entitled for any relief including reinstatement with consequential benefits that too, on some unsubstantiated technical grounds. The Award of the Labour Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 11. The writ petition is misconceived and accordingly, it will stand dismissed. No costs.