Judgment :- These two petitions have been filed – one by the workman and the other by the management, assailing the award passed by the Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in Ref.8/2004. The workman was working under the management in Grade II Alleging tampering of the member board so as to facilitate consumers (various establishments and hotels) to enjoy the benefit of excess units as against the actual units consumed, and making monthly collections, for unlawful gain, thereby causing pilferage and loss to the Department, after having kept the workman under suspension, relying upon the confession statement given by the workman and being satisfied with the same, disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal. Aggrieved, the workman moved the Government seeking reference. Government raised the following points for reference: Karnataka and referred the matter to the Labour Court. Labour Court after inquiry, has come to the conclusion that the misconduct is not proved and also, without holding enquiry, the workman was dismissed from service. Having held that the misconduct has not been proved, ordered for reinstatement with 80% back wages. Aggrieved, management has filed WP 20838/2005 and challenging the denial of 20% back wages, the workman has filed WP 27/2006. Heard the counsel representing the parties. It is the submission of the counsel representing the management that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse. Strict rules of evidence is not applicable. Mere preponderance of probability much less the confession statement made by the workman and the statement so obtained in whatsoever manner, is immaterial and it is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of misconduct. Being satisfied with the said confession statement and coupled with the fact that the workman is not only involved in one of the cases wherein he was caught while tampering but he has also admitted that he was in the habit of tampering the meter boards of various establishments and hotels and making monthly collections, the dismissal order came to be passed but, the Labour Court has shown misplaced sympathy stating that the facts are not proved. Accordingly, learned counsel has sought for setting aside the award of the Labour Court in ordering for reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits and also back wages. Accordingly, learned counsel has sought for setting aside the award of the Labour Court in ordering for reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits and also back wages. Per contra, counsel representing the workman submitted that as a matter of fact finding, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the statement of workman has been obtained under threat and coercion by the police and this aspect has not been disproved by any other cogent evidence. Further, no inquiry was held before penalizing the workman much less notice was served on him before initiating action. The order of dismissal passed is without proof of the guilt on the part of the workman. It is further submitted, in a case where a person is acquitted on merits in the prosecution, inevitably he has to be reinstated. The workman is acquitted on merits in the prosecution. The departmental inquiry also necessarily should obviate it and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition filed by the management and for granting of full back wages. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Choudhry Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana – 1994 supplement III SCC 675 and also the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M Paul Anthony Vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd & Anr – AIR 1999 SC 1416 wherein, referring to the departmental inquiry and criminal case based on identical set of facts and evidence in both proceedings is common and the employee was acquitted in the criminal case, it is held, the said acquittal can conclude the departmental proceedings and the order of dismissal passed before decision in the criminal case is liable to be set aside. In the light of arguments advanced, the points for consideration are whether the impugned award passed by the Labour Court holding that the misconduct of the workman is not proved is erroneous; whether the workman is entitled for an order of reinstatement and other consequential benefits and, whether the impugned award passed by the Labour Court needs interference. At the outset, counsel representing the management taking me through the decision of the Apex Court as to the manner of conduct of departmental inquiry and its evidentiary value and also the confession statement, in the case of Kuldip Singh Vs. At the outset, counsel representing the management taking me through the decision of the Apex Court as to the manner of conduct of departmental inquiry and its evidentiary value and also the confession statement, in the case of Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors – (1996) 10 SCC 659 in connection with criminal prosecution and also departmental inquiry instituted against a Head Constable, wherein in para 11 it is observed with respect to confession statement, the fact that it was made to the police or while in custody of the police may not be of much consequence for the reason that strict rules and Evidence Act do not apply to departmental proceedings and it would be permissible for the authorities to prove that the appellant did make such a confession during the course of interrogation and it would be for the disciplinary authority to decide whether it is voluntary or not. If the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that the statement was indeed voluntary and true, he may well be entitled to act upon such statement. In the said case, though it is noted that although in the criminal case the appellant was acquitted but, taking into consideration that the High Court has opined that there was enough material before the appropriate authority upon which it came to a reasonable conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry as contemplated by clause (2) of Art.311, it is also opined that nothing has been brought to notice to persuade not to accept the said finding of the High Court. Learned counsel has also relied upon the case of Dharmaratnakar Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution Vs. Educational Appellate Tribunal – 1995 (5) KLD 234 (SC) wherein it is held that when the delinquent admits the charge leveled against her, giving her an opportunity before passing the order does not arise. Further, he has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajith Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia & Ors – (2005) 7 SCC 764 wherein it is held that the dismissal of the delinquent would be justified and permissible wherein exigencies of situation would require prompt action to be taken and not taking prompt action would result in a situation worsening and uncontrollable. General Manager (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia & Ors – (2005) 7 SCC 764 wherein it is held that the dismissal of the delinquent would be justified and permissible wherein exigencies of situation would require prompt action to be taken and not taking prompt action would result in a situation worsening and uncontrollable. Even with reference to Standing Orders enabling dismissal without holding domestic inquiry, if the competent authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded and the continuance of the workman was neither expedient nor in the interest of the security, it is opined that the Standing Order did not confer a blanket or uncanalised power on the competent authority. Referring to the principles and scope of natural justice further it is held that persons must have a fair trial and fair appeal and pre-decisional hearing is better and always should be preferred but it is also stated that principles of natural justice or not rigid or immutable as such, they cannot be imprisoned in a straight jacket, they must yield to and change according to exigencies of situation and they must be confined within their limits and cannot be allowed to run wild. However, in the case of KSRTC Vs. Durgappa – ILR 2001 KAR 3971, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the Court is not to show misplaced sympathy while exercising jurisdiction under S.11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act. For, that would lead to indiscipline among the employees. In the case on hand, Labour Court referring to various decisions and also looking into the evidence on record, has opined that for the alleged misconduct of tampering the maters, a complaint was registered before the police and also the same was published in the paper. Although they decided to hold a departmental inquiry but, no charge sheet was issued, no inquiry was conducted and no explanation was called for. However, the order of dismissal came to be passed. Labour Court has observed as to what was the hurry to pass such an order. The case has been investigated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Vigilance Cell of the Corporation on receiving such anonymous letters regarding theft of electricity. However, the order of dismissal came to be passed. Labour Court has observed as to what was the hurry to pass such an order. The case has been investigated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Vigilance Cell of the Corporation on receiving such anonymous letters regarding theft of electricity. A report is also given to the effect that the workman was meddling with the energy meter and was cutting the main cover seal of the meter and reversing the recorded consumption of the meter and resealing the same by using adhesive. At that point of time, the Vigilance Staff has caught the delinquent. Later, confession statement of the workman is shown to be recorded and also it is revealed that out of the admitted and investigated cases, in one case to the tune of Rs.1,38,047/-energy was pilfered because of the conduct of the workman and in another case, Rs.1,54,000/-and also similar amount in respect of another hotel and in the one another case there was pilferage to the extent of Rs.4,34,336/-. It is seen under mahazar the Vigilance Staff have recorded certain statements in the presence of witnesses. The disciplinary authority, based on confession statement and the mahazar report and other documents placed before it, has dismissed the workman. The reason recorded is, security of the Board is involved as such, they proceeded to dismiss the workman. Labour Court questioned itself as to what is the security involved is not stated and, tried to negate the finding of the disciplinary authority. Referring to Regulation 11 of the KEB Employees’ Classification, disciplinary, control & Appeal Regulations, 1987, it has opined that before imposing punishment of dismissal, domestic inquiry is contemplated and stating that no such inquiry has been conducted and, also after analyzing the evidence on record of that of the management witness and referring to Regulation 14(3) and the proviso which provides that no order of imposing penalty be passed without giving opportunity of hearing and an opportunity to make a representation on the proposed penalty, has reversed the finding of the Disciplinary Authority. Further Labour Court has also taken into consideration the judgment in respect of acquittal of the accused in similar circumstances wherein on such acquittal of employee in the criminal case, he would be entitled for reinstatement with all benefits. Further Labour Court has also taken into consideration the judgment in respect of acquittal of the accused in similar circumstances wherein on such acquittal of employee in the criminal case, he would be entitled for reinstatement with all benefits. The workman has been dismissed from service based on the investigation report and also the confession made by him admitting the guilt of pilfering electricity by tampering the meter board and thus helping the consumers and, the loss caused in this regard to the Board runs to lakhs. Realising the situation, having kept the workman under suspension even without going through calling for reports or remarks or without serving any notice, being satisfied with the confession statement that has been recorded for which the workman has put his signature, the management dismissed the workman. Although there is justification for dismissal in the circumstance, there is violation of the minimum mandate as per proviso to Regulation 14 of the Regulations. To that extent although inquiry is expedient but, before imposing punishment the workman should have been made known of the consequences of imposing the order of punishment. There is some irregularity in the procedure being followed though the situation that is to say, the conduct of the workman is shown to be very grave and acting against the interest of the institution and indirectly it would be an act of misappropriation and unlawful gain. In the circumstances. Labour Court although has opined that there is violation, but it has taken a very lenient view in passing the impugned award and thus, extended misplaced sympathy. I am of the view, the finding of the Labour Court and the award passed thereon has to be modified suitably having regard to the factual back ground and circumstances of the case. Although it is the contention of the workman that no other witness like witness for the recording of confession statement and the police have been examined to prove the fact of confession, but it appears management has let in evidence of two witnesses and produced such statement which depicts the confession is made by the workman pleading his guilt. The decision of the Apex Court in this regard is to the effect it is not relevant as to how and in what manner the statement is obtained having regard to the gravity of the misconduct. The decision of the Apex Court in this regard is to the effect it is not relevant as to how and in what manner the statement is obtained having regard to the gravity of the misconduct. But one of the witnesses could have been examined in whose presence the confession statement was obtained to prove the fact of confession. That is absent in the case on hand. Nonetheless, it cannot be said that the very statement is obtained jeopardizing the interest of the workman. What is only observed is, there is short of the minimum procedure followed as to the principle of Evidence in not letting in evidence of the person who was present before whom the evidence was recorded. What is being noticed is, on the confession made the workman has put his signature. Apart from that, other two persons are witnesses for such recording of the confession statement. Also the investigating authority attached to the department were police on deputation, and they were not acting as if they are police authorities. The confession statement given before the Vigilance Officers of the department appears to be admissible in evidence in the circumstances, unlike the confession statement recorded before the regular police as in the case of confession made before customs officers and excise officers. In that view of the matter, there may not be any need to disbelieve the evidence as such, the said confessions statement ought to have been accepted by the Labour Court. But the fact remains, as per Regulation 14 of the Regulations, before imposing the proposed penalty, the workman ought to have been heard in the matter. That has not been complied with. Accordingly, while allowing the petition of the Management in part, it is ordered that, while maintaining the order of reinstatement the workman is not entitled for continuity of service from the date of dismissal till he is taken on duty much less consequential benefits or back wages. Further, management shall impose penalty of withholding four increments with cumulative effect. The workman be taken on duty within three months. Petition of the workman is dismissed.