Order Heard the parties and with their consent, this writ application is being disposed of finally at this stage itself. 2. The petitioner i.e. the Management of Bokaro Steel Limited of M/s Steel Authority of India Limited has challenged the Award of Labour Court, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 9/88 wherein the learned Labour Court has held that the order of dismissal of the workman from service was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the workman and thereby directed the Management to reinstate the workman from the date of his dismissal with stoppage of three annual increments and also directed to withhold half of the back wages as penalty for the proved misconduct. 3. The concerned workman Dhirendra Prasad was appointed to the post of Junior Pharmacist and was subsequently redesignated as Senior Pharmacist in the Medical Department. He was charge-sheeted on 13.10.1971 for the charge of misappropriation of the Company's property by willful falsification/defacement of the records of the Company-and for that, he was awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. He was again charge-sheeted for the negligence in duty and for wilful disobedience, for which also inquiry was held and the charges levelled against the petitioner was found to be proved and established and he was again punished with stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Third time also the "petitioner was again charge-sheeted on 29.1.1985 for misappropriation of medicines entrusted to him for distribution to patients against the prescription issued by the Doctors by committing fraud and dishonesty. The work~ man submitted his reply to the charge-sheet which was found to be unsatisfactory and thereafter, an enquiry was held and in the enquiry, charges of misappropriation of medicines worth Rs. 6,500/- entrusted to him, was found to be established. Thereafter, the concerned workman was dismissed from the service of the Company on 4.2.1987. 4. The domestic enquiry held against the petitioner was found to be fair and proper, However, the petitioner raised industrial dispute and subsequently, the dispute was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court and accordingly, the Labour Court, by the impugned Award, has held that the though the charges of misconduct of the workman of committing the misappropriation of medicine entrusted to him for distribution to the patients by committing fraud and dishonesty was proved but the punishll1ent of dismissal from the service was held to be disproportionate. 5. 5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is a settled law that when the Company looses confidence on any employee then. in that case, the dismissal from service is appropriate punishment and no sympathetic view can be taken in such matters particularly when the charges has been established that the concerned workman has committed the offence of misappropriation of Company's property. 6. On the other hand, Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-workman submitted that now the present position is that the concerned workman i.e. the respondent no. 1 has died and in his place his widow has been substituted: He further submitted that the amount of defalcation committed by the petitioner is very meager which is only Rs. 6,500/- and for that the petitioner has been dismissed from the service which, according to him, is excessive and submitted that the order of the Labour Court is not disproportionate and justified. He further submitted that the other similarly situated employees against whom similar charges were made, have been IE¥ off whereas, the petitioner has been booked for the said act of misconduct on his part. 7. Though learned counsel has cited several decisions in support of his submission e.g. the decision in the case of Janatha Bazar South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and Others vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangh and Others reported in (2007)7 SCC 517 and in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohan Lal Gupta and Others reported in (2000)9 SCC 521 , but it is not required to discuss in view of the nature of order which is being passed in this case. 8. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the charge against the workman .was misappropriation of the Company's property which was established in the enquiry. It further appears that on earlier two occasions also almost on similar charges, the petitioner was punished. 9. In such a situation. 8. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the charge against the workman .was misappropriation of the Company's property which was established in the enquiry. It further appears that on earlier two occasions also almost on similar charges, the petitioner was punished. 9. In such a situation. in my view, when the employer has lost confidence then certainly the reinstatement in service would not be appropriate and justified on the ground of punishment being disproportionate to the charges, However, considering the fact that the concerned workman has now died and now in his place his widow has been substituted and, therefore, in my view, the end of justice would be met if the employer Bokaro Steel limited is directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,75.000/- in lieu of back wages. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, the impugned award is hereby set aside with a direction to the petitioner to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 1.75,000/- in lieu of back wages to the widow of deceased employee within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall however be no order as to costs.