Order 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.04.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5477 of 2007 whereby the appellant's writ petition challenging the award dated 05.06.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, has been dismissed. 3. The facts reveals that petitioner was caught red handed on 24.01.1995 taking bribe of Rs. 150/- when he was on duty in shift 'E'. The labour court after considering the evidence of the parties held that petitioner was in fact caught red handed taking bribe and the amount of Rs. 150/- was also recovered immediately thereafter. The punishment inflicted upon the workman was upheld by the award. The learned Single Judge also, after considering the facts of the case, dismissed the writ petition hence this L.P.A. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the appellant was assigned the duty of receiving the goods only and, therefore, there was no occasion and there could not have been any reason for taking as well as giving bribe in the present case. It is also submitted that one another person namely B.K. Singh was also caught red handed taking the bribe but in his case, he has been reinstated in service. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is no sufficient evidence on record on the basis of which it can be inferred that money was taken as bribe in view of the defence of the appellant taken in the departmental proceeding and before the labour court. The defence of the appellant was that at about 11.00 am on 24.01.1995, the supplier came to the workman and asked for an amount of Rs. 150/- to attend some urgent work. The said person normally and in past also, took some money from the appellant. In the instant case, the supplier returned the said money of Rs. 150/-. The workman also admitted that he was surrounded by the workmen and other persons of the respondent company and Rs. 150/- was recovered from him. According to learned counsel for the appellant, so far as demanding and taking of the bribe is concerned, there is no evidence in view of the stand taken by the appellant. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records also. 150/- was recovered from him. According to learned counsel for the appellant, so far as demanding and taking of the bribe is concerned, there is no evidence in view of the stand taken by the appellant. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records also. At this juncture it will be relevant to mention here that writ petition was admitted on two counts. Firstly, whether the order of termination can sustain in law on the ground of non-examination of person from whom the appellant alleged to have received the illegal gratification and secondly, whether the punishment was proportionate to the guilt as there is allegation of taking bribe of Rs. 150/- only. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the person from whom the amount was taken, was examined in departmental proceeding and, therefore, first ground does not survive. It is also submitted that the defence taken by the appellant also is unbelievable in the fact that the appellant himself had lodged complaint against the person from whom, as he was saying, was receiving back the money. 7. Be that as it may, it is undisputed fact that on 24.01.1995 when the appellant was on duty, he took Rs. 150/- from one person and admittedly, he was supplier of the goods to the company. If the labour court, after appreciation of the evidence, has rejected the defence stand of the appellant that it was a case of return of money by the supplier to the appellant then it is a pure question of fact. Otherwise also, the defence on the face of it, is unbelievable. In view of the above reason, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of holding the petitioner/appellant guilty. 8. So far as quantum is concerned, taking of the bribe itself is sufficient ground for passing the order which has been passed against the writ petitioner and it cannot be compromised in any manner because of the reason of taking bribe of Rs. 150/- looking to the post which the petitioner was holding of receiving the goods of the other parties for the company. The amount of Rs. 150/- looking to the post which the petitioner was holding of receiving the goods of the other parties for the company. The amount of Rs. 150/- may also be irrelevant because of the reason that a person can disturb and pollute the working to the extent he can do and a person who is holding lower post, if indulged in such type of activities, he may also cause equal harm to the system because he may have to deal with large number of persons. 9. Be that as it may, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and also in the award of the labour court. Hence, the L.P.A., having no merit, is dismissed.