Judgment :- S. PALANIVELU, J. The contention of the appellant/workman is to the effect that he is joined as Electronic Weigh-bridge operator in April 1983 in the Salem Steel Plant, which is a public limited undertaking of Steel Authority of India and was suspended on 1.4.1986. A charge sheet was issued to him on 14.6.1985 stating that he claimed, medical reimbursement by furnishing false information, that he suppressed the material facts at the time of his service. On two occasions charge sheets were slapped upon him. In the first charge sheet dated 14.6.1985 the following misconducts on his part have been stated: a) Submission of false claims for payment; and b) Wilfully suppressing any material information and giving declaration or furnishing information in connection with the appointment or during the course of service. 2. In the second charge sheet dated 5.4.1986 the following charges have been enumerated:- a) interfering with the machine not connected with the work allocated; b) fraud or dishonesty in connection with the plants business; and c) Gross negligence or neglect of work. The management nominated enquiry officer who conducted the disciplinary proceedings against the workman and finally he submitted report stating that all the charges were proved. 3. The appellant raised an industrial dispute in Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No.117 of 1992. The award was passed by Labour Court on 20.9.1995 directing him to be reinstated to service without continuity of service and back wages, observing that the first two charges have not been proved and the third charge stands proved. The Labour Court found that the removal from service is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. 4. It is contended by the appellant that he had no intention to show the lesser weight when he weighed the truck and that it cannot be stated that he maneuvered to cut the power supply at the time of weighing. While he weighed the truck, it was 8020 kgm and when it was checked by the superior, it was 9160 kgs and there was a difference of 1140 kgm in the weight. Even though it was contended by the management that he did not complain about the power cut at the time of weighing, he did not prefer any written complaint to the superiors as to the power cut. The charge was proved as found by the enquiry officer. Even though it was contended by the management that he did not complain about the power cut at the time of weighing, he did not prefer any written complaint to the superiors as to the power cut. The charge was proved as found by the enquiry officer. But the Labour Court did not accept the findings in this regard and has held that the charge stands not proved, after an elaborate discussion. However, the learned single Judge has not accepted the finding of the Labour Court and that the charge has been proved. It has been observed by the learned Single Judge that either by design or accident the weigh bridge operator fails to record the correct and proper weight of the empty lorry or with the goods as the case may be, it may lead to difficult situation to the management in sustaining monetary loss or impair the fair name of the plant in the business circle. 5. Insofar as the charge with regard to the suppression of material fact is concerned, materials are available to show that the workman was living with his brothers wife one Mrs. Mani and daughter of his brother by name Annapoorani. He has referred their names in the nomination papers for the service records as his wife and daughter. But actually at the time of joining his service they were not his wife and daughter as evident from the divorce document executed by Mrs. Mani. Dhanapal also has given a notice on 20.2.1984 stating that his wife is living with his brother, for which the workman gave reply on 12.3.1984, in which he has not mentioned about divorce document. On 20.11.1982 he joined the service. But only on 7.10.1983 a document of divorce came to existence. Hence, on the date of joining the service she was not his wife. 5.(a) Further, he claimed medical allowances describing Mrs. Mani as his wife. He also availed Leave Travel Concession (LTC) and in the declaration therefor on 20.11.82 he has mentioned Mrs.Mani as his wife and Annapoorani as his daughter. The above said factors would amount to suppression of material facts. Both the enquiry officer and Labour Court had held that the charge on the basis of the above said allegations has been proved. It has been confirmed by the learned single Judge. The above said factors would amount to suppression of material facts. Both the enquiry officer and Labour Court had held that the charge on the basis of the above said allegations has been proved. It has been confirmed by the learned single Judge. We do not find any ground to differ from the view taken by the learned single Judge, which has to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed. 6. The appeal memorandum runs to the effect that the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is not adequate. However, in order to assess the quantum of compensation, the above said discussion touching the charges and the appreciation of materials by the lower Court and the learned single Judge has become inevitable. 7. The learned single Judge has awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement assigning reasons for the same. It has been observed by the learned single Judge that the employee has lost the confidence of the Master both by his negligence and by furnishing wrong, even if not deliberately false, information and cannot be forced on the employer and that being a weigh bridge operator he should have been vigilant and he is responsible for the goods taken out of the factory premises and in this back ground his negligence has to be seen and that taking into account these factors and proved misconduct and the exercise of discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court and modified it to one of payment of compensation of Rs.70,000/- by the Management. 8. The above said order has been challenged by the appellant interalia, that when the learned single Judge accepted the findings of the Labour Court on merits, the benefit of backwages and continuity of service should have been given besides reinstatement, that the discretion under Section 11-A of the Act should have been exercised in this regard, thatthere may not be any finding that the management lost confidence on the appellant in the absence of any pleading and proof on the part of the respondent management and that the charges of negligence against this appellant ought to have been found as not proved. 9. 9. Contending contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Management Mr.V. Karthik would contend that even though the appellant was serving as a weigh-bridge operator, considerable loss would be incurred by the Management if he had been acting negligently and in this case it has been proved that he has been acting negligently, that he suppressed real facts as to his marriage with Mrs. Mani, which is against the standing orders and that he failed to earn confidence of the management but he lost its confidence on account of his wilful negligence, dereliction in duty and suppression of facts. In the affidavit filed by the Management in this appeal, it has been stressed, that during the period between 20.09.1995 and 17.09.2004, the period between the passing of the award by the Labour Court and disposal of the Writ Petition by this Court, the appellant was gainfully employed and he did not file petition for monthly payments in terms of Section 17B of the Act. It is also affirmed therein that even though the management is aggrieved with the order of the learned single Judge in granting compensation as a Public Sector undertaking, solely with a view to put an end to the litigation, it has not chosen to file writ appeal and that the appellant is not entitled to be extended discretionary relief by this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.V. Ajay Khose would draw the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in 1991 (1) LLJ 291 [Air Lanka Ltd., v. John William Nathan and another] wherein it is held that the relief of reinstatement ought not to be denied to the workman, except when the same is strictly warranted by the sobriety of the proved charges when there is evidence on the part of the management, proper relief would be benefitted in lieu of reinstatement. He also placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in (1985) 2 SCC 349 [Sant Raj and Another v. O.P. Singla and Another] in which it is held that the compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be salary spread over for a period of 12 years since each of the workmen must be entitled to backwages in full for a period of 12 years and roughly the monthly pay packet of each workmen was Rs.1000/- besides overtime allowance, bonus and other benefits and therefore, a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of them would meet the ends of justice. 11. Citing the above said observation of the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this Court may also take the similar view in this case. But we find the facts distinguishable between the above said case and the present case. In the case before the Supreme Court, the workmen were loadmen in Delhi Airport and the Supreme Court has recorded observation that loss of confidence on the part of the management may not play a role in deciding the quantum of compensation. The finding of the Apex Court in this regard the above said case goes thus:- "6. Dr. Chitley , learned counsel who appeared for the respondents attempted to take us through the evidence with a view to persuading us that the employer even if it acted contrary to law , should not be burdened with reinstatement because it had lost confidence in the appellants. The employer is a foreign air-transport company. The workmen were loaders posted at Delhi Airport. In this far-fetched hierarchical relationship , loss of confidence if it is to be considered a relevant factor would have hardly impressed us. However , as the workmen are out of job from August 30 , 1973 i.e. roughly for a period of 12 years , it is in their own interest , that instead of reinstatement in service under an unwilling if not a hostile employer. adequate compensation would meet the ends of justice. Therefore , in the special facts and circumstances of this case , though disagreeing with tile reasons given by the Labour Court for declining to grant the normal relief of reinstatement , we uphold the same but the meagre compensation awarded by the Labour Court namely one years E. wages requires to be adequately and properly modified." 12. Therefore , in the special facts and circumstances of this case , though disagreeing with tile reasons given by the Labour Court for declining to grant the normal relief of reinstatement , we uphold the same but the meagre compensation awarded by the Labour Court namely one years E. wages requires to be adequately and properly modified." 12. In the case before Supreme Court, the workmen were loadmen. But in the present case on hand, the appellant was a weigh-bridge operator who was holding a key position burdened with the responsibility of checking the entry of incoming and outgoing vehicles and any irregularity on his part would directly harm the finance and profit earned by the factory. Hence the observation that he lost evidence of the employer is proper. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant also cites a decision in 2005 (4) SCC 4 [K.C. Sharma v. Delhi Stock Exchange and Others] in which the appellant was a General Manager in Delhi Stock Exchange. On account of certain misconduct, he was terminated from service and the Supreme Court held that although the termination of the appellants service was illegal and unjustified, the totality of the circumstances of the case renders it improper and unjust to direct the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and the High Court had directed, while moulding the relief on agreement of the parties, directed Rs.12 lakhs to be paid to the appellant as compensation and the Supreme Court modified the quantum of compensation and increased to the sum of Rs.15 lakhs as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In the said case, the Supreme Court has held that the termination is illegal and unjustified. But in the present case, the charges framed against the appellant have been proved hence he cannot take recourse to the above said decision. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon a Supreme Court decision in 1986 LLJ 509 [O.P.Bandari v. Indian Tourism Corporation Ltd. & Ors.] in which Their Lordships were pleased to set out the guidelines for fixing the quantum of compensation payable to a workman in lieu of reinstatement where proven misconduct against him is available. The following is the relevant portion in the said decision:- "10. The following is the relevant portion in the said decision:- "10. In our considered opinion, compensation equivalent lo 3.33 years salary (including allowances as admissible) on the basis of the last pay and allowances drawn by the appellant would be a reasonable amount to award in lieu of reinstatement taking into account the following factors viz:- 1. The corpus if invested at the prevailing rate of interest (15%) will yield 50% of the annual salary and allowances. In other words every year he will get 50% of what he would have earned by way of salary and allowances with four additional advantages: (i) He will be getting this amount without working. (ii) He can work somewhere else and can earn annually whatever he is worth over and above, getting 50% of the salary he would have earned. (iii) If he had been reinstated he would have earned the salary only upto the date of superannuation (upto 55, 58 or 60 as the case may be) unless he died earlier. As against this 50% he would be getting annually he would get not only beyond the date of superannuation, for his & lifetime (if he lives longer), but even his heirs would get it in perpetuity after his demise. (iv) The corpus of lump sum compensation would re main intact, in any event. 15. We follow the above said principles in this case for fixing just compensation. It is stated that the basic pay of the appellant was Rs.630 and Dearness allowance was Rs.592/- per month, totalling to a gross salary of Rs.1,222/-. At this rate, total salary of 3.33 years is calculated it would come to Rs.48,880/-. However, the learned single Judge has awarded Rs.70,000/-. There is no appeal from the side of the management. We are of the considered opinion that the award of Rs.70,000/-as compensation in lieu of reinstatement will meet the ends of justice. There is no ground mentioned in the memorandum of appeal that the appellant was not gainfully employed during the period when he was out of service. It was not argued before this Court also. We are of the considered opinion that the award of Rs.70,000/-as compensation in lieu of reinstatement will meet the ends of justice. There is no ground mentioned in the memorandum of appeal that the appellant was not gainfully employed during the period when he was out of service. It was not argued before this Court also. Further, it is stated in the affidavit filed by the Management that he was gainfully employed during the period of passing of award by the Labour Court and the disposal of the writ petition by this Court and hence he did not file a petition for monthly payment in terms of 17B of the Act. However, there is no material to show that he was gainfully employed elsewhere. So, we are confirming the award passed by the learned single Judge and there is no scope for interference with the same, which is confirmed. The appeal is devoid of merits. 16. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.