JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the employer and is directed against award dated 4.4.2006 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), U.p. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 1 of 2001. The matter which was referred to the labour Court was as to whether action of petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman Zakhir Khan, respondent No. 2 in this writ petition with effect from 29.4.2000 was just and valid or not. 2. Respondent No. 2 was employed by the petitioner in 1993. The case of the workman was that when he demanded higher pay, the employer on 29.4.2000 asked him to sit in a closed room and obtained in writing from him that he had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 5200/- by over-charging the same from the customers and he would return the said amount to the employer and that workman was also compelled to sign on blank paper and on four undated vouchers. 3. The case of the employer was that the workman resigned on 29.4.2000 which was accepted by them on 3.5.2000 and he was paid his dues. It was further pleaded by the employer that the workman was caught red handed overcharging customers. It was also pleaded that nature of work of the workman was supervisory hence he was not workman and his wages were Rs. 1600/- per month. The workman had also contended that immediately after the expulsion he attempted to lodge FIR but the police officer refused to do so under pressure of the employer. 4. The labour Court held that signatures on the photostat copy of the resignation filed by the employer were not at the proper place and alongwith signatures thumb impression was unnecessarily obtained which proved that initially signatures were obtained on the blank paper and thereafter resignation was transcribed. On this ground alone labour Court held that resignation was forced hence termination was illegal. Ultimately, labour Court directed reinstatement with full back wages. Through interim order dated 21.12.2006 passed in this writ petition, petitioner was directed to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act. 5. As noted in the order dated 21.1.2013, workman has recovered/received Rs. 1,77,000/- under the said interim order. 6. The workman had also admitted in writing that he was overcharging the customers and had misappropriated the amount of Rs. 5. As noted in the order dated 21.1.2013, workman has recovered/received Rs. 1,77,000/- under the said interim order. 6. The workman had also admitted in writing that he was overcharging the customers and had misappropriated the amount of Rs. 5200/- and would return the same to the employer. The workman had also been paid the wages payable on cessation of employment which he admitted by signing the vouchers. Regarding these two documents, labour Court did not say a single word. Workman did not state that in what form or manner the force, coercion was exercised. It was not stated that what was the particular threat or intimidation given to him. Accordingly, resignation could not be held to be forced or written on blank paper. Merely because signatures were not at proper place or apart from signatures, thumb impression had also been affixed it could not be inferred therefrom that the resignation was written on blank paper. Workman admitted the misappropriation in writing. There is no finding by the labour Court that this written admission was obtained by force from the workman. Copy of letter accepting that the workman had received Rs. 3990/- more as commission has been annexed alongwith the rejoinder-affidavit as Annexure RA-1. Commission was overcharged at the rate of Rs. 70/- per piece. Photocopy of the resignation letter is Annexure RA-2. 7. Accordingly, impugned award cannot be sustained. Even otherwise workman was misappropriating the amount of the employer, hence it was a case of loss of confidence. 8. Lastly even if it is held that there was some deficiency in termination still in view of complete loss of trust, workman would not be entitled to reinstatement, he would be entitled only to some compensation/damages. In this regard reference may be made to Management of Aurofood Pvt. Ltd. v. S. Rajulu, AIR 2008 (Supp.) SC 1885. 9. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,77,000/- may very well be treated as more than due compensation/damages. 10. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned award is set aside. However it is directed that the amount of Rs. 1,77,000/- received by the workman under interim order passed by this Court shall not be refundable. ——————