ORDER : M. Venugopal, J. The Petitioner/Society has preferred this writ petition praying for an issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records from the file of the 1st Respondent/Labour Court, Vellore and to quash the Award dated July 4, 2002 in I.D. No. 1280/1993. 2. The 1st Respondent/Labour Court, Vellore, while passing an Award in I.D. No. 1280/1993 dated July 4, 2002, has, among other things, observed that.... for approximately over 13 years the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has No. income and for the misconduct committed by him the aforesaid punishment itself is sufficient and for the misconduct committed by the 2nd Respondent/Claimant, there is No. necessity to award punishment once again and the denial of back wages and other benefits is a sufficient punishment and has held that the back wages and other benefits are necessarily to be denied and further it has come to the conclusion that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has been serving as Secretary for several years and that he has not taken any steps to get cooperative training and but instead of appointing him as Secretary because he has No. cooperative training, directed that he be appointed as Tester and accordingly, passed an Award-directing that from the date of come into force of Award, within two months the Petitioner/Society (Respondent in I.D.) has to reinstate the 2nd Respondent/Claimant as Tester with continuity of service but the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has been denied with the back wages and other benefits.' 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Society submits that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has committed an error in directing the reinstatement of 2nd Respondent/Claimant with continuity of service and without back wages as a Tester in the Petitioner Society and as a matter of fact, the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has failed to appreciate the seriousness of the charges levelled against him. 4. 4. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that charges No. 1 to 7 and 10 have been held to be proved by the 1st Respondent/Labour Court which are grievous in nature because of the fact that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has falsely entered the quantity of milk received by the Petitioner Society and the amount to be paid to the members, but these aspects of the matter have not been adverted to by the 1st Respondent/Labour Court in a proper perspective and indeed, the aforesaid proved charges amounts to clear case of theft, fraud, misappropriation and falsification of the books of accounts of the Petitioner Society for which the 2nd Respondent/Claimant must be awarded with the maximum punishment of Dismissal. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that charges No. 11, 13, 17, 18 and 20 have not been proved and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer in this regard ought to be set aside. 6. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has failed to note that the only intention of writing false accounts is with a view to cause monetary loss to the Petitioner Society and unfair gain to the 2nd Respondent/Claimant and the conclusion of the 1st Respondent/Labour Court that the said charges will amount to negligence and dereliction of duty is completely an erroneous one. 7. That apart, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the conclusion of the 1st Respondent/Labour Court that charge No. 11 has not been proved is an erroneous one and liable to be set aside because of the fact that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has failed to note that the charge against the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is that he failed to show in the books of accounts the advance amount of Rs.5,874/- kept by Thiru A. Prushothaman, former President which is meant for disbursement on April 4, 1987 and the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has come to a wrong conclusion that since the said amount has been kept in suspense account, the said charge cannot be said to be proved. 8. 8. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the conclusion of the 1st Respondent/Labour Court as regards the Charge No. 18 pertaining to the failure of the 2nd Respondent/Claimant to maintain proper accounts in respect of a sum of Rs.540/- payable to North Arcot District Cooperative Milk Producers Union, Vellore has not been proved in the enquiry is an incorrect one inasmuch as the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has omitted to see that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has clearly admitted that based on the oral instructions of one Mr. Nithianandam, the vaccine has been returned to the North Arcot District Cooperative Milk Producers Union, Vellore, but No. credit has been given for the return of the vaccine in the books of accounts of the Petitioner Society. 9. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the charge against the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is that he has not maintained proper accounts for a sum of Rs.540/-payable to the Milk Producers Union, Vellore, which is proved even from the cross examination of the 2nd Respondent/Claimant and when the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has admitted that he has not maintained proper, accounts for the return of the vaccine and has' not given proper credit nor maintained any documents certainly it amounts to clear case of negligence and dereliction of duty. 10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the conclusion of the 1st Respondent/Labour Court in interfering with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge No. 18 is based on mere surmises and conjunctures and therefore, the same has to be set aside. 11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner puts forward a plea that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has failed to note that charge Nos. 13 and 14 viz., assaulting the Ex-President, Mannar who demanded the accounts of the Society and also assaulting one Radha Krishnan, Tester are all grievous in nature and just because the 2nd' Respondent/Claimant has admitted the guilt of the assaulting Radha Krishnan, it does not in any manner mitigate the seriousness or grievous nature of the misconduct committed by him. 12. 12. The pith and substance of the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has proceeded on an extraneous consideration and only on misplaced the; sympathy in interfering with the punishment of Dismissal imposed on the 2nd Respondent/Claimant and such an approach is contrary to the ingredients of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 13. Expatiating his arguments, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner/Society is a rural cooperative society and earns a small income through purchase and sale of milk from members those who are mostly rural villagers and the interest of the society will be greatly effected if the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is reinstated taking of the fact that the record of service of the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is a bad one and that apart, if the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is reinstated when the charges of falsification of accounts and assault of a co-employee have been proved in the enquiry, it will affect the morale of other employees and the credibility of the cooperative society. 14. In short, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has not adverted to factual and legal aspects of the matter in a proper perspective and appreciated the same in a correct manner, which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and therefore, prays for allowing the writ petition in the interest of justice. 15. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has passed an Award by directing the 2nd Respondent/Claimant reinstatement with continuity of service and without back wages as the Tester in the Petitioner's Society by exercising its power u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act which need not be interfered with by this Court. 16. In the Claim Statement, the 2nd Respondent/Claimant in I.D. No. 1280/1993 on the file of the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has inter alia averred that the writ Petitioner, without providing an opportunity to him, has imposed a severe punishment of Dismissal, which is an arbitrary, illegal one and also against the principles of natural justice and moreover, the Petitioner/Society has not taken into account the 12 years of continuous service rendered by him. As a matter of fact, the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has attributed the action of the Petitioner's Society in dismissing him as a vitiated one by means of victimisation and mala fides and has prayed for setting aside the-illegal order of termination and reinstate him with continuity of service with full back wages and all other attendant back wages. 17. In the counter filed by the Petitioner/Society, it is mentioned that as many as 24 charges have been levelled against the 2nd Respondent/Claimant which run as follows: 1. That on May 8, 1988 for the supply of 1.1. litre milk by his brother Athikesavan only once he has not only made the entry for it in the procurement register but also made another entry as 2 litre has also been supplied by his brother. 2. That on May 28, 1988 for the supply of 0.7 litre milk made by T.V. Nathan he has made entry as if one litre of milk was supplied. 3. That on June 20, 1988 for supply of 1.3. litre milk made by G. Mani he has to be paid a cost of Rs.3.50 only whereas he has made entry that Rs.5.40 has to be paid. 4. That on April 30, 1988 for the supply of 3.8 litre of milk made by C. Krishna he has to be paid Rs.10.25 whereas he has made entries that ? 12.25 has to be paid. 5. That on May 19, 1988 for the supply of 1.3. litre of milk supplied by C. Govindammal it is entered as 1.2. litre in the accounts. 6. That on June 30, 1988 Kannan supplied 2.5. litres of milk whereas it was shown as 1.8. litres of milk supplied by him on June 21, 1988. 7. That he has made false entries in the society's accounts in respect of the following items. (i) On April 30, 1998 only 25.7 litres of milk was sold but he has shown in the accounts. 93.85 litres which is excess to the actual sales. (ii) on May 1, 1988 only 25.3 litres of milk was sold but he has shown Rs.88.88 as its cost in excess to the actual cost. (iii) On May 6, 1988 only 11.2 litres of milk was sold but he has shown Rs.39.35 as its cost in excess to the total cost. (ii) on May 1, 1988 only 25.3 litres of milk was sold but he has shown Rs.88.88 as its cost in excess to the actual cost. (iii) On May 6, 1988 only 11.2 litres of milk was sold but he has shown Rs.39.35 as its cost in excess to the total cost. (iv) On May 20, 1988 only 22.4 litres of milk was sold whereas he has shown 32.4 litres of milk in the accounts. (v) On May 2, 1988 only 13.4 litres of milk was sold but cost is mentioned as Rs.45.15 less than the cost price. (vi) On February 15, 1988 the payment to be made was Rs.11,728/- whereas it was shown in disbursement Register as Rs.11,718.00. 8. That he has not written monthly accounts for August 1987. 9. That he did not prepare the list of persons who supplied the milk upto June 30, 1987 for conducting the election as per the direction of the Deputy Register (Milk Development), Vellore. 10. That he has maintained two account books one upto April 18, 1987 and Another upto September 13, 1987 for the same period. 11. That he has failed to show in the accounts the advance amount of Rs.5,874/- with Thiru A. Purushothaman meant for disbursement on April 4, 1987. 12. That he unauthorised by stocked cattle feed during the months of March and April 1987 in the Society building and sold them for his personal benefit. 13. That on April 1, 1988 he has assaulted the Ex-President Thiru M.R. Mannar who demanded the account books of the society. 14. That on April 20, 1988 he has assaulted Thiru Radhakrishnan the testor for not cooperating with him. 15. That he has sold locally milk in excess quantity viz. 150, 200 and 250 litres on same days at a cost of Rs.3.50 and 3.75 per litre and billed accordingly though he is authorized to sell 50 litres in a day. 16. That on August 15, 1987 he auauthorisedly on his own accord received Rs.2,000/- from G. Selladurai and sold milk to him. 17. That between August 15, 1987 and March 19, 1988 he has sent 3788 litres of sub standard quality of milk to Vellore milk Union and thereby caused loss of Rs.10230.30 to the society. 18. 16. That on August 15, 1987 he auauthorisedly on his own accord received Rs.2,000/- from G. Selladurai and sold milk to him. 17. That between August 15, 1987 and March 19, 1988 he has sent 3788 litres of sub standard quality of milk to Vellore milk Union and thereby caused loss of Rs.10230.30 to the society. 18. That he did not maintain account properly in respect of the amount of Rs.540/- being the payment payable to the North Arcot District Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Vellore for the vaccine supplied as per the demand made in letter dated May 2, 1988. 19. That from April 2, 1986 he has maintained double cash book. 20. That on July 20, 1988 and July 21, 1988 he procured milk from the members and: was selling in his personal capacity for his personal benefits. 21. That in the Audit Report for 1977-78 was pointed out that he has not qualified himself, by taking cooperative training and he has failed to maintain general ledger, stock Register and cash book properly, besides having not written day book. 22. That in the Audit Report for 1978-79: his salary of Rs.1,485/- was held under objection as already pointed out he has not undergone co-operative training and it was also pointed out that he did not maintain the procurement Register, Disbursement Register and Day book. 23. That in the Audit Report for 1870-80, it was ordered that his salary of Rs.1,695/- has to be recovered for not having undergone co-operative training and also pointed out that, he did not maintain general ledger and day book properly. 24. That in the Audit report for 1978-81 it was pointed out that he did not undergo co-operative training and that he did not' maintain general ledger and day book properly. 18. 24. That in the Audit report for 1978-81 it was pointed out that he did not undergo co-operative training and that he did not' maintain general ledger and day book properly. 18. According to the Petitioner/Society (Management), the 2nd Respondent/Claimant submitted his explanation dated August 9, 1988; to the charge memo and his explanation has been found to be not satisfactory and hence, a domestic enquiry has been ordered by means of letter dated August 26, 1988 and the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has taken part in that enquiry and he has been provided with all opportunities to defend as per principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer has submitted his enquiry report dated July 1, 1989 holding the 2nd Respondent/Claimant guilty in respect of 19 out of 24 charges and not guilty in respect of charges 8, 9, 12, 16 and 19. Further, a show cause notice dated July 2, 1989 has been issued to the 2nd Respondent/Claimant as to why he should not be dismissed from service and the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has not furnished his reply within the stipulated time of 7 days and since No. reply has been received from the 2nd Respondent/Claimant, an order of Dismissal dated July 24, 1989 has been passed by the Petitioner/Society dismissing the 2nd Respondent/Claimant from service and the order has been sent to him through registered-post acknowledgment due and therefore, the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages etc. and consequently, the petition has liable to be dismissed. 19. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Society, the Petitioner/Society by means of Memorandum dated July 24, 1989 has passed an order dismissing the 2nd Respondent/Claimant from service from June 25, 1989 (the day of temporary suspension) and only in the year 1993 he has raised an industrial dispute after lapse of 5 years. 20. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company, Ltd., Madras v. Principal Labour Court, Madras and Another 1996 (2) LLN 627 at page 628 and 629 wherein it is held as follows: From the materials on record the charges framed against the second Respondent are found proved and established. The reasoning adopted by the Labour Court in interfering with the punishment exercising power u/s 11-A of the Act, in my view, is not acceptable. The reasoning adopted by the Labour Court in interfering with the punishment exercising power u/s 11-A of the Act, in my view, is not acceptable. The discretion exercised by the Labour Court in this regard was not judicious, and the reasons given therefor are untenable and illogical. The Labour Court manifestly erred and exceeded his jurisdiction in interfering with the punishment awarded to the second Respondent. His interfering with the award of punishment by the impugned order was uncalled for an unwarranted, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and gravity of the charges established. The nature of charge of misconduct in this case being acts of dishonesty and forgery, cannot be condoned, by exercising power u/s 11-A so as to interfere with the punishment awarded by the management. The reasons given by the Labour Court for interfering with the award exercising powers u/s 11-A, are totally untenable and perverse. The difficulty of getting employment cannot be a ground to put premium on the grave misconduct of Respondent 2. Continuance of such persons in the employment would not be in the interest of the industry or organisation. It may even demoralise others in the industry. The punishment awarded by the management was just having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the charges found established 21. He also relies on the decision of this Court Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills, Palacode v. Labour Court, Vellore and Another 1997 (1) LLN 391 at page 392 wherein it is held as follows: The Court should not entertain a misplaced sympathy towards a workman and should not prejudice the issue from the angle of rehabilitation. The question of rehabilitation, and reformation could arise in a case, of minor delinquency or misconduct. Where the charges are grave in nature, can the Labour Court exercising power u/s 11A of the Act impose on a management a workman whose presence is likely to affect the morale and discipline of the entire factory? Should the management be embarrassed by the reinstatement of such a workman by denying the managerial; function to which a management is entitled to, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case? The acceptance of such a proportion would only lead to interfering with the managerial functions to the extent of destroying the discipline and control in the entire factory. The acceptance of such a proportion would only lead to interfering with the managerial functions to the extent of destroying the discipline and control in the entire factory. Section 11A of the Act is not intended to embarrass the management to such extent. The Labour Courts and Tribunals cannot mechanically use the words "the punishment being disproportionate to the charges." As observed by the Supreme Court of India unless the Labour Court finds the punishment to be highly disproportionate to the charges, the Labour Court should not interfere. Having found the second Respondent guilty of the charges, while exercising the function of imposing a punishment, the Labour Court is in fact in the position of management and the sentiments expressed by the management when they terminated the services of the second Respondent have to be kept in mind and different principles will not apply to Labour Court while determining the punishment to be awarded to the guilty worker. In this case, the first charge relates to negligence in the performance of duties, causing considerable embarrassment to the management. This charge by itself may amount only to loss of confidence, but the second charge relates to dishonesty and temporary misappropriation. It was sought to be argued that temporary misappropriation cannot be equated to theft. But the intention of the worker and his general attitude are clearly visible from the proof of the said charge. The third charge relates to the demand of bribe of Rs. 100/-. This is a very serious charge and could undermine the very reputation of the management. When the Court is faced with three charges, all of which have been proved by evidence adduced before the Labour Court itself, it would be improper to have any misplaced sympathy in favour of the worker. The question of rehabilitation would only result in the destruction of discipline and morality in the entire factory. Section 11A of the Act was not certainly intended to cause such an embarrassment to the management. 22. He draws the attention of this Court to the decision of Honourable Supreme Court Janatha Bazar Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Whole Sale Stores Limited) Etc. Vs. Section 11A of the Act was not certainly intended to cause such an embarrassment to the management. 22. He draws the attention of this Court to the decision of Honourable Supreme Court Janatha Bazar Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Whole Sale Stores Limited) Etc. Vs. The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha Etc., (2000) 7 SCC 517 , at page 572 wherein it is held that 'once act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is No. question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstating the employee in service etc.' 23. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks in aid of the decision of Honourable Supreme Court Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, (2001) 2 SCC 574 , whereby and whereunder it is inter alia held as follows at p. 726 of LLJ: 6. It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on checking, it is found that the bus conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the bus conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Company. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare. 7. In our opinion, the order of dismissal should not have been set aside, but we are informed that in the meantime the Respondent has already superannuated. We, therefore, on the special facts of this case, do not set aside the Order of reinstatement but direct that the Respondent would not be entitled to any back-wages at all but he would be entitled to the retrial benefits. 24. That apart, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the following decisions: (a) In Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and Others Vs. 24. That apart, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the following decisions: (a) In Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and Others Vs. Hoti Lal and Another, (2003) 3 SCC 605 , it is held that 'A bus conductor deals with public money and acts in fiduciary capacity and hence in his case highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is must and exceptionable and the misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with Iron hands and in this case charges have been proved after an elaborate and fair enquiry and that the order of dismissal is not disproportionate etc' (b) In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115 , it is held by the Honourable Supreme Court that 'Punishment of removal/dismissal is the appropriate punishment for an employee found guilty of misappropriation of funds and the Courts should be reluctant to reduce the punishment on misplaced sympathy for a workman and further there is nothing wrong in an employer losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal and in such cases, there is No. place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on part of judicial forums and interfering with quantum of punishment and that the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the order passed by Labour Court are set aside and order passed by the punishing authority dismissing/removing the Respondent from service is restored.' (c) In Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Vs. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal, (2008) 12 SCC 131 , it is held that 'in view of the dishonesty of the conductor resulting in financial loss to the State, the punishment by way of dismissal from service was not disproportionate and the Courts below erred in altering the punishment holding dismissal to be disproportionate to act of misconduct.' (d) In Madura Coats (represented by its Personnel Manager), Thiruppur v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and two Others 2004 I LLJ 756 this Court has held as follows at p. 759 of LLJ: 16. The Labour Court, in the circumstances, ought to have examined the question as to whether it was at all desirable or expedient to compel the employer to reinstate such workmen whose acts were such to justify the loss of confidence in those employees. The Labour Court, in the circumstances, ought to have examined the question as to whether it was at all desirable or expedient to compel the employer to reinstate such workmen whose acts were such to justify the loss of confidence in those employees. Persons, who were required to monitor and ensure that only goods that are properly accounted for are removed, instead of doing that, themselves become instrumental in causing removal of larger quantity than what was required to be removed in terms of the invoice. The loss of confidence in them on the part of the employer would be a factor which was required to be taken into account while considering the expedience or otherwise of reinstating such workmen in the service of the employer. 17. We have been informed by counsel that when the employer stopped running the depot directly with effect from October 8, 1994, a voluntary retirement scheme was in force of which benefit was taken by all those who were at that time employed in that depot. 18. Instead of reinstatement, the employer shall pay to these workmen full wages from the date of the order of dismissal till the date of closure of the deport, viz., October 8, 1994; treat these workmen also as having obtained voluntary retirement and give them the monetary benefits as given to others under that scheme, and also pay them the amount which they would have been eligible to receive as gratuity. 19. Counsel for the workmen submitted that the workmen had been suspended on July 30, 1990. If full wages had not paid to them from that date till date of dismissal, full wages for the period up to the date of the order of dismissal, after deducting the subsistence allowance, if any paid, shall be paid. Needless to state, these payments will be in addition to the amounts paid to the workmen u/s 17-B of the Act. The order of the Labour Court shall stand modified to this extent. (e) In Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Limited and another, etc. Vs. Needless to state, these payments will be in addition to the amounts paid to the workmen u/s 17-B of the Act. The order of the Labour Court shall stand modified to this extent. (e) In Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Limited and another, etc. Vs. Kala Singh, etc., (1997) 6 SCC 159 , the Honourable Supreme Court has held that 'Where a Labour Court records a finding that the domestic enquiry in the case of dismissal of employee was defective and gives opportunity to adduce evidence by management and workman and records a finding on the basis of evidence that dismissal of employee was valid, it would relate back to the date of original dismissal and not from the judgment of the Labour Court.' (f) In Regional Manager Uttaranchal Rd. Tpt. Corpn. Vs. Than Singh and Another, (2008) 2 SCC 581 , it is held as follows: 7. It appears from the statement of Respondent 1 employee that he himself accepted that though he had collected the fare, he had not issued tickets to 20 passengers and had only issued tickets to three passengers. The confusion appears to have arisen because the High Court apparently proceeded on the basis that after the tickets were issued only the entries in the way-bill were to be recorded. This is really not so, because Respondent 1 himself had accepted that tickets had not been issued to 20 passengers. The material on record also shows that the checking staff with a view to regularise the entries and regularising the travel of the passengers had directed issuance of tickets to those 20 passengers to whom Respondent 1 had not issued tickets. This is evident from the fact that the Tribunal had categorically noted that 20 passengers were issued tickets by the checking staff and Respondent 1 was directed to make entries in the waybill. Issuance of tickets on the basis of the instructions of the checking staff cannot legalise the illegality committed by Respondent 1 employee. That being so, the approach of the High Court was clearly wrong and the conclusions drawn are contrary to the materials on record. Since the High Court has not considered the materials in the proper perspective, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 25. That being so, the approach of the High Court was clearly wrong and the conclusions drawn are contrary to the materials on record. Since the High Court has not considered the materials in the proper perspective, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 25. The main contention advanced on the side of the Petitioner is that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has floated the records in regard to the receipt of milk and payment of money to the milk supplied and the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has been the Secretary of the Society and he has been in charge of procurement of milk from members and maintain the accounts and he has been given the charge sheet dated July 28, 1988 containing as many as 24 charges and on August 9, 1988 the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has submitted his explanation and on July 2, 1989 he has been issued with the show cause notice and since No. reply has been received from the 2nd Respondent/Claimant, the Petitioner/Society has dismissed him from service from the date of his temporary suspension on June 25, 1988. 26. The 1st Respondent/Labour Court, in its Award dated July 4, 2002 in I.D. No. 1280/1993, has held that Charges No. 1 to 6 levelled against the 2nd Respondent/Claimant have been proved. The Labour Court, after : scrutinising the documents filed in the domestic enquiry and also after perusing the Enquiry Officer's findings, has come to the conclusion that the finding of the Enquiry Officer in holding the Charge No. 7 proved is not a wrong one. 27. In regard to the Charges No. 8 and 9, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that they have not been proved and accordingly, the 1st Respondent/Labour Court, in its Award, has held that it is not necessary to decide the same. 28. As far as the Charge No. 10 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer, in the domestic enquiry, has rendered a finding that the same has been proved on the basis of Exhibits M-18 to M-20. The Labour Court has also come to the conclusion that the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry in regard to the Charge No. 10 is a correct one. 29. The Labour Court has also come to the conclusion that the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry in regard to the Charge No. 10 is a correct one. 29. In regard to the Charge No. 11 that Former President A. Purushothaman on April 4, 1987 has kept the advance of Rs.5,874/- for disbursement, the same has not been shown In the accounts, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the said amount has been shown by the 2nd Respondent/Claimant as suspense account as per Exhibit M-21 and also to that effect the Management Witness No. 1 before the enquiry has proved the same, for which No. explanation has been offered by the 2nd Respondent/Claimant and resultantly, has come to the conclusion that the said charge has been held to be proved. However, the 1st Respondent/Labour Court, in its Award, has opined that the Charge No. 11 has been framed as if the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has misappropriated the amount and since in oral evidence it is mentioned that the said amount has been shown in suspense account, the said charge is not an acceptable one and accordingly, it has disagreed with the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer that the said Charge No. 11 has been proved and answered accordingly. 30. The very fact that the Management witness R. Durairaj before the Enquiry Officer on December 24, 1988 has deposed that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has shown the amount of Rs.5,874/- as an advance of A. Purushothaman in the suspense account, it cannot be strictly said that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has not shown the said amount of Rs.5,874/- in the accounts but in reality, it has been shown under the wrong head viz., suspense account and in this regard, the charge that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has not shown this amount in accounts is not an acceptable one and in this regard, this Court disagrees with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, but concurs with the view taken by the 1st Respondent/Labour Court that the said charge is not an acceptable one. 31. 31. In regard to the Charge No. 12 that 2nd Respondent/Claimant unauthorisedly stocked cattle food during the months of March and April 1987 in the Society building and sold them for his personal benefit, the said charge has been held to be not proved by the Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report and in this regard, the 1st Respondent/Labour Court, in its Award, has held that since the Enquiry Officer has held that the said charge has not been proved, it is not necessary for it to decide about the same. 32. In regard to Charge No. 13 that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant on April 1, 1988 has assaulted the Ex-President M.R. Mannar who demanded the account books of the society, it is quite evident from the evidence of Management Witness R. Durairaj (before the Enquiry Officer) that the said Mannar has given complaint Exhibit M-23 to him that he has been beaten by the 2nd Respondent/Claimant. Also the evidence of M.R. Mannar on February 11, 1989 is to the effect that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant by holding his banian has beat him. The Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has beat/assaulted the Ex-President Mannar and has held that the said charge has been proved. However, the view taken by the 1st Respondent/Labour Court that the complaint has been given after two months and therefore, No. significance can be given to that effect and also that No. explanation offered for lodging a complaint late and as such, the said charge cannot be considered to be a true one and resultantly, holding that the Charge No. 13 has been held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer is not a correct one, does not find favour with this Court and per contra, this Court is quite in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer that the said Charge No. 13 has been held to be proved. 33. 33. In regard to Charge No. 14 that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant on April 30, 1988 has assaulted Radhakrishnan (Tester) for not cooperating with him, both the Enquiry Officer as well as the 1st Respondent/Labour Court have come to the conclusion that the said charge has been proved and on-going through the statements of K. Murthy and Devaraj Exhibits M-25 and M-26 (before the Enquiry Officer) and since the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has admitted through his letter Exhibit M-27 that he has beat Radhakrishnan, the said charge is held to be proved, in the considered opinion of this Court. 34. In regard to the Charge No. 15 that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has sold locally the milk in excess quantity viz., 150, 200 and 250 litres on same days at a cost of Rs.3.50 and 3.75 per litre and billed accordingly though he authorised to sell 50 litres in a day, in the domestic enquiry, Bill Books-Exhibits M-28 and M-29 have been marked on the side of the Petitioner/Society and as per Bill Books, it is clear that the milk has been sold at a different price and hence, the Enquiry Officer has held that the charge has been proved. The 1st Respondent/Labour Court has also come to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer's finding in regard to the Charge No. 15 is a correct one. In this regard, this Court also holds that the said Charge No. 15 has been held to be proved against the 2nd Respondent/Claimant. 35. In regard to Charge No. 16 that on August 15, 1987 the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has unauthorisedly on his own accord received Rs.2,000/- from G. Selladurai and sold milk to him, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion (in the domestic enquiry) that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant in the year 1987 is not occupying any post so as to have responsibility and accordingly, held that the said charge has not been proved. The 1st Respondent/Labour Court has also, in its Award, held that there is No. necessary to decide this particular charge since the Enquiry Officer has held that the same has not been proved. 36. The 1st Respondent/Labour Court has also, in its Award, held that there is No. necessary to decide this particular charge since the Enquiry Officer has held that the same has not been proved. 36. In regard to Charge No. 17 that between August 15, 1987 and March 19, 1988 the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has sent 3788 litres of sub-standard quality of milk to Vellore Milk Union and thereby caused loss of Rs.10230.30 to the society, the Enquiry Officer (in the domestic enquiry) by placing reliance on the deposition of R. Radhakrishnan (M.W.3) to the effect that he serving as Tester and that he properly tested the milk and after purchase handed over to the Secretary for the sub-standard milk Secretary's responsible etc. and has come to the conclusion that the said charge has been proved. Before the Enquiry Officer, Radhakrishnan has further stated that from March 1, 1988 checking equipment is not available and from March 1, 1988 he has examined the milk by putting the Lacto Metre. It is not proved to the satisfaction of this Court as to how the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is responsible for sent sub-standard milk. In this regard, the evidence of Management witness M.W.3 is not clear cut and therefore, this charge is held not proved by this Court and in this regard, this Court concurs with the view taken by the 1st Respondent/Labour Court that the said charge has not been proved and further, the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer that the Charge No. 17 is held to be proved is not a correct one, as opined by this Court. 37. 37. In regard to Charge No. 18 that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has not maintained account properly in respect of the sum of Rs.540/-being the payment payable to the North Arcot District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union, Vellore for the vaccine supplied as per the demand made in letter dated May 2, 1988, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that as per Exhibit M-46 a sum of Rs.540/- has been recovered from milk amount and that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant in his cross examination though has stated that on the basis of letter of one Nithianandam the vaccine has been handed over to the Union (Ondriam) is not a believable one and also for handing over to the vaccine to the Union, there is No. document for the same and further the said Nithianandam has not been examined and that the said amount has not been remitted by the Secretary to the Union and therefore, the said charge has been held to be proved. A perusal of Exhibit M-46 marked before the Enquiry Officer shows that the name of the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is shown and from whom the recovery is to be effected. The Charge No. 18 against the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is that the Secretary to the value of Rs.540/- has received vaccine for cows owned by members and not distributed the said vaccine and collected money and remitted the same to the Union and as such, the sum of Rs.540/- has been recovered from the society. Before the Enquiry Officer, No. evidence has been produced in regard to the handing over of vaccine to the Union and further the said Ninthianandam has not been examined and if really the vaccine has been handed over the Union, then, there is No. need to deduct the money of Union. Hence, the Enquiry Officer has come to the correct conclusion that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant as Secretary has not remitted the said amount of Rs.540/- to the Union and accordingly held that the said charge has been proved. Hence, the Enquiry Officer has come to the correct conclusion that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant as Secretary has not remitted the said amount of Rs.540/- to the Union and accordingly held that the said charge has been proved. This Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the Enquiry Officer in this regard and the contra view taken by the 1st Respondent/Labour Court that there are No. proper documents to show that a sum of Rs.540/- has been recovered from the Management and accordingly, the said Charge No. 18 has not been proved is not a correct one based on the facts and circumstances of the case. 38. In regard to Charge No. 19 that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant from April 2, 1986 has maintained double cash book, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the said charge has not been proved and further the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has held that it is not necessary to decide this aspect and accordingly, it is held that the Charge No. 19 has not been proved by the Petitioner/Society. 39. In regard to Charge No. 20 that on July 20, 1988 and July 21, 1988 the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has procured milk from the members and has been selling the milk in his personal capacity for his personal benefits, the Enquiry Officer has marked the letters of Balaraman and Gopal as Exhibits M-47 and M-48 and further Gopal has adduced evidence whose evidence is clear and has held that the said charge has been proved. However, the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has come to the conclusion, in its Award, that the said charge has not been proved. 40. This Court, on going through the Exhibit M-47-Letter of Balaraman dated July 28, 1988, finds that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has compelled him by stating that he is doing business separately and on July 20, 1988 and July 21, 1988 he has measured milk to him which is a true one. On going through Exhibit M-48 Letter of M. Gopal dated July 20, 1988 it is quite clear that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has asked for one cow milk from him for which he has replied that he will only supply to the society. The evidence of M.W.4-Gopal (before the Enquiry Officer) is only in line with the contents of letter Exhibit M-48 and the same is not helpful to the Petitioner/Society. The evidence of M.W.4-Gopal (before the Enquiry Officer) is only in line with the contents of letter Exhibit M-48 and the same is not helpful to the Petitioner/Society. Though the author of Exhibit M-47 Mr. v. Balaraman has not been examined before the Enquiry Officer (domestic enquiry), yet, the contents of his Exhibit M-47-letter to the effect that he has supplied/measured milk to the 2nd Respondent/Claimant on July 20, 1988 and July 21, 1988 based upon the compulsion of 2nd Respondent/Claimant, this Court is of the considered view that the said Charge No. 20 is held to be proved and the contra view taken by the 1st Respondent/Labour Court in this regard is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law. 41. In regard to Charge No. 21 that in the Audit Report For 1977-78 it is pointed out that he has not qualified himself for taking cooperative training and he has failed to maintain general ledger, stock register and cash book properly, besides having not written day book, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the said charge has been held to be proved based on Exhibit M-49. However, the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has come to the conclusion that this charge cannot be given importance because of the fact that it is for the Petitioner/Society to take necessary steps for providing proper training to the 2nd Respondent/Claimant. In this regard, this Court is of the considered view that though the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is not personally or directly responsible for not getting the training etc., yet, since he has acted as a Secretary to the Petitioner Society, he has to maintain general ledger, stock register and cash book properly, besides writing the day book correctly and since he has not done the same, he is certainly held responsible for the same because of his position of Secretary of the Petitioner Society and therefore, this Court holds that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is not anyway personally or directly responsible for not getting qualified himself in regard to cooperative training, but, however he is responsible for not maintaining the general ledger, stock register, cash book and not writing the day book and in this regard only the charge is held to be proved. 42. 42. Likewise, though the 1st Respondent/Labour Court in regard to Charge No. 22 has held that the same is not to be given much importance because of the fact that charge has been framed in a general manner etc., it is to be pointed out once again that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is not at all responsible for not getting qualified with cooperative training. However, since he has not maintain the Procurement Register, Disbursement Register and Day Book is certainly held to be responsible and in this regard the contra view taken by the 1st Respondent/Labour Court that much importance cannot be given to the said charge is not a correct one in the eye of law and this Court holds that the said charge has been held to be proved because of the fact that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has acted as a Secretary of the Petitioner Society whose duty is to maintain Procurement, Disbursement Registers and Day Book and accordingly, the point is answered. 43. In regard to Charge No. 23 that in the Audit Report for 1979-80, it was ordered that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant salary of Rs.1,695/-has to be recovered for not having undergone Co-operative Training and also the report has pointed out that he has not maintained general ledger and day book properly, it is to be reiterated that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is not responsible for not getting qualified himself with the Co-operative training and this Court pertinently points out that the audit of the Petitioner/Society to provide the 2nd Respondent/Claimant the Co-operative training (provided he is qualified otherwise) and therefore, this Court holds that since the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has served as a Secretary for 1979-80 his salary Rs.1695/- cannot be recovered in the eye of law and therefore, this part of the charge false flat to the ground. But however, since he has not maintained the general ledger and day book as seen from Exhibit M-53 and M-54 marked before the Enquiry Officer he is certainly responsible for the said lapse and accordingly in this regard the later portion of the charge is held to be proved and the contra view taken by the 1st Respondent/Labour Court to the effect that much importance given to the charge etc. is not correct in the eye of law. 44. is not correct in the eye of law. 44. In regard to Charge No. 24 that in the Audit Report for 1979-81 it has been pointed out that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has not undergone co-operative training and that he has not maintained General Ledger and Day Book properly, it is to be pointed out that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is not responsible personally/directly for not acquiring the qualification of co-operative training, but it is the duty of the Petitioner/Society to provide him with Co-operative training or to send him for Co-operative training and accordingly, the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is not responsible for his not acquiring the Co-operative training qualification but in regard to the other later portion of the charge that he has not maintained General Ledger and Day Book properly as seen from Exhibit M-53 and M-54 (marked before the Enquiry Officer), he has not maintained the same and therefore, the said charge is proved in this regard and the contra view taken by the 1st Respondent/Labour Court to the effect that much importance given to the charge etc. is not legally sustainable. 45. this Court aptly recalls the decision Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited v. N.K. Singh (2006) 12 SCC 554 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has, among other things, held that 'without indicating any reason, the leniency shown by the Labour Court is clearly unwarranted.' 46. Also, in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy and Others, (2005) 2 SCC 481 , wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that 'The question. Labour Court should have asked itself while exercising discretion u/s 11A should have been whether reasons given by it were sufficient to come to a reasonable conclusion that punishment of dismissal was harsh, in the background of finding recorded by it that confidence of management was shaken in Respondent.' Further, in the aforesaid decision in para 26 at page 488 it is held as follows: That apart, the reasons given by the Labour Court to reduce the penalty are reasons which are not sufficient for the purpose of reducing the sentence by using its discretionary power. The fact that the; misconduct now alleged is the first misconduct again is No. ground to condone the misconduct. The fact that the; misconduct now alleged is the first misconduct again is No. ground to condone the misconduct. On the facts of this case as recorded by the Labour Court the loss of confidence is imminent and No. finding has, been given by the Courts below, including the Labour Court, that either the fact of loss of confidence or the quantum of punishment is so harsh as to be vindictive or shockingly disproportionate. Without such finding based on records, interference with the' award of punishment in a domestic inquiry is impermissible. 47. In Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate, (2005) 2 SCC 489 , the' Honourable Supreme Court has held that 'for the misconduct of sleeping while on duty, the dismissal is held justified keeping in view of the facts and circumstances and past conduct of the delinquent employee. Further, in the aforesaid decision in para 29 it is held hereunder at p. 745 of LLJ: 29. Furthermore, it is trite, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of the Act, must act within the four corners thereof. The Industrial Courts would not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there exists a statutory provision in this behalf. Although its jurisdiction is wide but the same must be applied in terms of the provisions of the statute and No. other. 48. In Vanamamalai v. Sundaram Textiles Limited, Nanguneri and Another 2000 I LLJ 702 this Court has held that 'Beating co-worker with chappel on his head is grave misconduct and ought not to be condoned and that the Labour Court is held to have exercised its discretion properly in the matter.' 49. In the decision A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by Depot Manager Vs. K. Pochaiah and Another, (1999) 1 SCC 191 , it is held as follows at p.' 977 of LLJ: 5. The Appellants are in appeal by special leave and contend that once the High Court had come to the conclusion that the order of dismissal of the first Respondent was justified, it had No. jurisdiction or power to issue the direction to appoint the first Respondent as a cleaner on compassionate grounds. We are entirely in agreement with the Appellants contention. It is one thing to find that the punishment is disproportionate to the indiscipline and to reduce the severity thereof. We are entirely in agreement with the Appellants contention. It is one thing to find that the punishment is disproportionate to the indiscipline and to reduce the severity thereof. It is quite another to hold that the punishment was justified and yet to direct the employer to re-employ the delinquent employee. The High Court does not have the jurisdiction or the power to do so, on compassionate grounds or otherwise. 50. A scrutiny of the Award passed by the 1st Respondent/Labour Court, it is quite clear that it has come to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has written the accounts and misappropriated the amounts in a careless and negligence manner and it has also further come to the conclusion that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has to be given one opportunity to mend himself since he has given a letter realising the mistakes and accordingly has directed the reinstatement of the 2nd Respondent/Claimant by the Petitioner/Society by providing him with the job of Tester with continuity of service but denied him the back wages and other benefits. 51. It is to be pointed out that the quantum of punishment in Disciplinary matter is purely within the realm of Disciplinary Authority. Also, only when the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge that No. prudent person placed in the position of Disciplinary Authority would have imposed such a punishment, the High Court can interfere. 52. From the above narration, it is quite crystal clear that Charges No. 1 to 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20 against the 2nd Respondent/Claimant have been proved by the Petitioner/Society to the subjective satisfaction of this Court. In regard to the Charge Nos. 21 to 24, this Court holds that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is not anyway personally or directly responsible for not acquiring the qualification of Co-operative training and in this regard, the Petitioner/Society alone is squarely responsible for providing him with the requisite Co-operative training or to depute him to Co-operative training and in this regard, the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is not held to be responsible and his salary of Rs.1,695/- as mentioned in the Audit Report for 1979-80 cannot be recovered in the eye of law. But in regard to the later portion of the charges relating to maintenance of General Ledger, Stock Register, Cash Book, not writing Day Book, Procurement, Disbursement Registers etc., the same have been proved by the Petitioner/Society to the judicial conscience of this Court. Hence, for the proved charges referred to above, including the charges Nos. 13 and 14 viz., assaulting of Ex-President M.R. Mannar and one Radhakrishnan (Tester) which are serious in nature, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner/Society being an Employer has lost confidence or faith on the 2nd Respondent/Claimant and for the proved charges, this Court opines that the punishment of removal from service awarded by the Petitioner/Society to the 2nd Respondent/Claimant as per its communication dated July 24, 1989 from the date of his suspension as on June 25, 1989 is a proper and appropriate one and the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has misdirected itself while ordering the reinstatement of the 2nd Respondent/Claimant as Tester with continuity of service and in this regard, its Award is per se not sustainable in the eye of law and also the exercise of its discretion as per Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act in this regard is not a sound and correct one based on the facts and circumstances of the case which float on the surface and accordingly, this Court sets aside the same and allows the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner/Society to promote substantial cause of justice. 53. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No. costs. The Award passed by the trial Court dated July 4, 2002 in I.D. No. 1280/1993 is set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this writ petition. 54. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner/Society has paid the 2nd Respondent/Claimant Section 17(B) wages under the Industrial Disputes Act only for some time and has not paid thereafter. 54. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner/Society has paid the 2nd Respondent/Claimant Section 17(B) wages under the Industrial Disputes Act only for some time and has not paid thereafter. In the circumstance, this Court directs the Petitioner/Society to pay the 17(B) wages for the period it has not paid and further, this Court directs the Petitioner/Society to pay the same (by calculating it) directly to the 2nd Respondent/Claimant through Cheque/Demand Draft within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, it is open to the 2nd Respondent/Claimant to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the Petitioner/Society in the manner known to law and in accordance with law.