ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 7.10.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur. 2. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication’: Whether the termination of services of Sri Niranjan Singh, operator, Ticket No. 3335/04495/2 by the management of M/s. Telco Ltd., Jamshedpur is proper? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? 3. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, could not challenge the findings on merits. However, he submitted that the management had discretion to inflict lesser punishment but harsh punishment of dismissal has been inflicted at the fag end of the service of the petitioner for the alleged theft of property of the Company worth only Rs. 400/-. He further submitted that the past conduct of the petitioner could not be taken into consideration. 4. On gong through the award, it appears that the charge of theft of the Company’s property has been conclusively proved against the petitioner. It was found that in the year 1968 also, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for theft of the company’s property and he was found guilty in the domestic enquiry but ultimately by recalling dismissal order, it was replaced by the punishment of "warning". It was further found that theft of company’s property of any amount is grievous and its value is immaterial. It also relied on the judgment of this Court in Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 and Anr. 2002 (3) JCR485 (Jhr) : 2002 (3) JLJR 408 , in which it was held that "where charge of misconduct is proved against the workman and the order of dismissal is passed in the domestic enquiry then that amount to losing the confidence of the workman by the management in such a situation exercise of power under Section 11-A by the Labour Court or Tribunal converting the punishment into reinstatement is improper". 5. Taking into consideration the overall fact, situation and the law laid down, the Labour Court found that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate rather it was commensurate with the gravity of the charge. 6. The Labour Court has considered the materials on record including the quantum of punishment as noticed above. 6. The Labour Court has considered the materials on record including the quantum of punishment as noticed above. It is now well settled that the past conduct of the employee can be taken into consideration See (2007) 8 SCC 656 -Government of A.P. etc. In the circumstances, there is no illegality or perversity in the award calling for interference in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.