Order In this writ petition the Management petitioner has challenged the award dated 19.12.09 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 23/1997. By the said award learned Labour Court has set aside the order of termination of the respondent after holding the termination illegal and improper and has further directed for his reinstatement with 50% back wages and consequential benefits. 2. The respondent-workman was proceeded against by the Management in a domestic enquiry on the charge of recovery of Voveran tablets of 50 Mg. (30 Nos.), one 'Glo' cleansing powder, eight strips of Norflox 400 Mg. tablets each strip containing 10 tablets (total 80 tablets), one Digene tablet and 1.2 K.G. of Bleaching Powder valued at Rs.450/-. The said articles were allegedly recovered from the Dicky of the scooter of the concerned workman. 3. In the domestic enquiry the charge was said to be proved and the concerned workman was awarded punishment of dismissal from service. The concerned workman raised industrial dispute through letter of demand dated 5.8.96 alleging his dismissal wrongful and illegal. According to the concerned workman the charge-sheet dated 1.6.92 was issued by an incompetent authority. The allegations were false and incorrect and were levelled with mala fide motive to victimize and put him to harassment. He further alleged that the enquiry officer, was an employee of the Management and he acted on their dictates. 4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur and the same was registered as Reference Case No.23/1997. Notices were issued to the concerned workman and the Management. Both the parties appeared and filed their respective written statements. 5. The concerned workman K.C. Bandhopadhyay in his written statement has stated that he was an employee of the Medical Department and was holding the confirmed post w.e.f. 1.12.76. He has been working with honesty and his performance and conduct were all along satisfactory. Considering his suitability, his grade was revised from time to time from 8-4 to 8-7. The charge-sheet dated 1.6.1992 was issued on false and fabricated allegations of theft of the Company's materials. The charge-sheet was issued by a senior consultant of works hospital, who had no authority for the same. The domestic enquiry was also maliciously conducted. There was no cogent evidence to prove the charge of theft against the concerned workman. But, in spite of the same, he has been held guilty. The charge-sheet was issued by a senior consultant of works hospital, who had no authority for the same. The domestic enquiry was also maliciously conducted. There was no cogent evidence to prove the charge of theft against the concerned workman. But, in spite of the same, he has been held guilty. He has further stated that on 15.5.92 while he was going out after his general shift duty was over, the security staffs of the Company stopped him at the main gate and searched, but nothing objectionable was recovered from his possession. Only Voveran tablets prescribed for his wife by Dr. H.S. Raut and issued from Counter No.3 of the Hospital was found. Removal of 18 Nos. of Norflox 400 Mg. is baseless, as the stock register was verified as per the statement of Dr. S.S.N. Rao, who deposed in the domestic enquiry in which no discrepancy was found. Bleaching powder was supplied to the workman from the hospital for purifying the drinking water. It is issued without cost to the employee of the Company. There is, thus, no substance in the allegation of stealing the said articles. Though there was no sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge, he was illegally terminated from service. The order of punishment is, thus, wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. The Management M/s TELCO Ltd., on the other hand, stated, inter alia, that the workman is guilty of removing the Company's property. The theft of Companis property is an act of misconduct under Order 24(x) of the Standing Order of the Company. The said charge has been established in the domestic enquiry and on the basis of the said proved charge, the punishment of dismissal was awarded to the concerned workman. The domestic enquiry was fair and proper and after observing all the legal procedures, the punishment of dismissal has been awarded. There was no illegality in the domestic enquiry or in the order of punishment. 7. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management against the workman is proper, fair and valid, was decided by the Labour Court as a preliminary issue holding that the domestic enquiry was fair and valid. 8. Learned Labour Court at the time of final disposal thus framed other issues. On the basis of the evidences on record learned Labour Court decided those issues holding, inter alia, that the charge sheet was not issued by the competent authority. 8. Learned Labour Court at the time of final disposal thus framed other issues. On the basis of the evidences on record learned Labour Court decided those issues holding, inter alia, that the charge sheet was not issued by the competent authority. Senior Consultant, Works Hospital of M/s TELCO, who had issued the charge-sheet, had no authority for the same. The order of dismissal of the concerned workman is also not based on admissible evidence and valid reasons. The charge against the petitioner could not be substantiated by the evidences on record and as such the order of dismissal of the concerned workman is neither proper nor justified. He found the punishment of dismissal disproportionate to the charge and too harsh and noticed that the concerned workman had crossed the age of superannuation during the pendency of the reference case. He held him entitled for reinstatement on his post w.e.f. 16.5.1992. He is not entitled to the benefit in terms of money till the date of superannuation. The Labour Court, thus, ordered reinstatement of the concerned workman only with 50% back wages with consequential benefits, with continuity of his service. 9. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assailed the said award mainly on the grounds that once the domestic enquiry is held to be fair and proper, learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to enter into the merit of the case. He had to confine his award to the extent of quantum of punishment. Learned Labour Court failed to take into consideration that the charge-sheet can be issued either by the appointing authority or by the controlling authority. The Senior Consultant, Works Hospital had controlling power and as such he has committed an error in holding that the charge sheet was not issued by the competent authority. The petitioner has been held guilty of stealing medicine which is the property of the Company and as such the order of dismissal is not disproportionate to the charge. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents and the impugned award. I find that learned' Labour Court has considered all the relevant aspects and has discussed the same in great detail. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents and the impugned award. I find that learned' Labour Court has considered all the relevant aspects and has discussed the same in great detail. On the basis of the materials and the evidences collected in the domestic enquiry, it is evident that the concerned workman has been found guilty of taking away the medicines and bleaching power (1.2 K.G.) contrary to the evidences on record. The record shows that the Management had examined witnesses and brought documentary evidence. MW-2 Smt. Jayanti Dutt, who was one of the enquiry officers, has admitted that BINCARD was checked and entry in respect of the stock of tablets on the date of incident i.e. 15.5.92 was tallied with the opening balance, meaning thereby, that there was no shortage in the stock. Dr. M.K. Sinha, Sr. Consultant (Works Hospital) in domestic enquiry has said that bleaching powder is distributed free of cost to the employees. It has been admitted that Voveran tablets were issued on the basis of the prescription of the Doctor for the wife of the workman. 11. Learned Labour Court on the basis of the said admitted materials on record has held that the charge against the petitioner could not be substantiated and there is no legal basis for the punishment of dismissal awarded to the concerned workman. 12. I find no illegality in the said conclusion of learned Labour Court. In view of the said admitted materials and findings on record, whether the person who had issued the charge-sheet is competent, is immaterial. I, therefore, find no ground made out for interfering with the impugned award. ' 13. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.