Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award of the second respondent labour Court, dated 27. 2001, made in I.D.No.421 of 1998. 2. It has been stated that the first respondent Management had deputed five members of the petitioner Union to perform the work of factory watchmen during the month of October, 1997. Though they had performed their duties without any blemish, a complaint had been made, during the period from 10. 1997 to 10. 1997, that a hose pipe measuring 20 mts. was missing from the factory. A domestic enquiry was conducted and all the five workers were issued with the punishment of suspension from service for one month. Aggrieved by the punishment imposed on the workmen, the petitioner Union had raised an Industrial Dispute before the second respondent labour Court, in I.D.No.421 of 1998. The second respondent labour Court, by its award, dated 27. 2001, made in I.D.No.421 of 1998, had dismissed the Industrial Dispute. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the complaint against the workmen was vitiated by bias and victimization. No specific time or date had been mentioned as to when the hose pipe was found missing. .4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also contended that the hose pipe could have been missing due to the negligence of the higher officials or by their own acts. In any case, the hose pipe could not have been missing without the knowledge of the superior officers. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that based on the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, it was found that the workmen were responsible for the loss of the hose pipe, since they had been appointed as watchmen during the relevant point of time. Even though the workmen had alleged that the hose pipe had been taken away by the higher officials, there was nothing to prove the said allegations. It is not in dispute that the workmen were on duty, on 10. 1997, and that they were in-charge of the security of the factory. While so, it cannot be accepted that the hose pipe had been taken away or lost without their knowledge. It is not in dispute that the workmen were on duty, on 10. 1997, and that they were in-charge of the security of the factory. While so, it cannot be accepted that the hose pipe had been taken away or lost without their knowledge. Since it is the responsibility of the workmen to safeguard the properties of the first respondent Management, they are liable for the loss of the hose pipe and therefore, the punishment of suspension from service for one month, imposed on them, is appropriate. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had further submitted that during the enquiry before the second respondent labour Court, no document had been marked on behalf of the workmen, whereas twenty one documents had been marked on behalf of the first respondent Management. No witness was examined on behalf of the petitioner, either before the enquiry officer or during the enquiry before the second respondent labour Court. Based on the evidence available on record, the labour Court had come to the conclusion that the allegations made by the petitioner had not been proved. There was nothing to show that the hose pipe was taken away by the higher officials and that the labour Court had found that no objections were raised by the workmen, with regard to the enquiry conducted against them by the first respondent Management. .7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had relied on the decision of this Court in KAVARAKKAL ESTATE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE AND OTHERS (2001 (3) L.L.N.1149), wherein it was held that the labour Courts do not invoke Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with regard to the quantum of punishment in cases where the punishment imposed on the workman is not a case of discharge, dismissal or removal from service or in the absence of any victimization or unfair labour practice or discrimination or malicious or arbitrary exercise of power. 8. In the present case, the labour Court had rightly found that no such allegations have been proved by the workmen concerned, as held in the above mentioned order. 9. In such circumstances, the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned award, dated 27. 2001, made in I.D.No.421 of 1998. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.