Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to ID No.147 of 2003 dated 14.02.2011 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same. 2. The deceased 2nd respondent has joined the service in the petitioner organisation in the year 1972 and thereafter he was working as Senior Assistant at Sirkazhi Branch. He was suspended on 03.04.2001 and thereafter he was issued with a charge-sheet and an enquiry was conducted and he was removed from the service by an order dated 10.08.2001. Challenging the dismissal order, the deceased 2nd respondent has raised a dispute, which was taken up by the Labour Court as ID No.147/2003. The case of the petitioner/management is that the entire sale proceeds collected on 01.04.2001 was not remitted by the deceased 2nd respondent and he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,115/-. The deceased 2nd respondent has stated before the Labour Court that he had to attend a funeral and hence he rushed to Mayiladuthurai on 01.04.2001. On 02.04.2001, he returned to work and remitted a sum of Rs.950/-, instead of Rs.2,115/-and misappropriated the balance sale proceeds. In the enquiry, the charge framed against the petitioner on 07.04.2001 was held to be proved and not satisfied with the conduct of the deceased 2nd respondent, he was removed from the service by an order dated 10.08.2001. 3. The case of the Management is that the petitioner has committed serious misconduct and he has remitted the amount in three installments, which has been admitted by him in his letters dated 02.04.2001 and 04.06.2001 and these two documents form part of the Labour Court records. That apart, the past records of the deceased 2nd respondent was very bad and that he has already indulged in similar incidences earlier and hence the 2nd respondent is not entitled to any relief. 4. After considering the materials on record, the Labour Court has allowed the Industrial Dispute in part holding that the deceased 2nd respondent is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service only and he is not entitled to back wages and other attendant benefits. The Labour Court proceeded on the basis that even though the petitioner has contended that the deceased 2nd respondent has misappropriated the collection amount, the petitioner/management did not produce any accounts regarding the alleged misappropriation. The Labour Court proceeded on the basis that even though the petitioner has contended that the deceased 2nd respondent has misappropriated the collection amount, the petitioner/management did not produce any accounts regarding the alleged misappropriation. The Labour Court also further held that on the date of dismissal of the workman, the workman was not liable to pay any amount and hence the punishment given by the petitioner/management to the deceased 2nd respondent was disproportionate and hence the dismissal order was set aside and the aforesaid award was passed. Challenging the award, the petitioner/management has preferred the writ petition stating that the award of the Labour Court is perverse. 5. It is an admitted case of the employee vide letters dated 02.04.2001 and 04.06.2001 marked as Exs.M6 and M12 that he has not remitted the collected sale proceeds and that the workman deposited only Rs.950/- and the balance was remitted on 11.05.2001, 29.05.2001 and 01.06.2001. When the employee has stated this fact, more particularly, these documents have been marked before the Labour Court, there is nothing more to be proved by the Management, as the documents would itself speak for that. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, the employee died and his legal heirs have been substituted by an order dated 03.07.2014 made in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in this writ petition. The only contention of the workman is that he has rendered 28 years of service and he is no more and the terminal benefits of the employee has not been disbursed and if the award is set aside, the family would not get any pension or other benefits. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again, has held that the cases of misappropriation have got to be dealt with in iron hands. In this case, in paragraph 8 of the award, there is a clear averment by the Labour Court that out of the total sale proceeds collected, the employee has deposited only Rs.950/- and the balance was remitted on three different dates. It is shocking to note that the Labour Court has stated that on the date of dismissal order dated 10.08.2001, there was no money due to the Management by the workman. The conduct of misappropriation cannot be wiped away by means of repayment of money. It is shocking to note that the Labour Court has stated that on the date of dismissal order dated 10.08.2001, there was no money due to the Management by the workman. The conduct of misappropriation cannot be wiped away by means of repayment of money. Since the deceased 2nd respondent's past conduct was also bad, as could be seen from the dismissal order, I find much force in the contention of the petitioner/management that the employee had committed misappropriation and he is not entitled to any indulgence from any court and hence the award is liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The award of the Labour Court dated 14.02.2011 made in I.D.No.147/2003 is set aside. However, it is directed that If any amount is due to the employee, which is lying with the Management, alone can be released within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.