ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by the workman challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore in Ref.No.38/2007. 2. Briefly stated the facts are:- The petitioner joined the respondent organization as Senior Assistant on 20.04.1985. It transpires that on 7.8.1998, the District Manager of Mandya visited the wholesale godown which was under the control of the workman/petitioner and conducted inspection. During the course of inspection, it was noticed that the food grains and clothes were found short in the cash sales register extract. Such shortage of goods were mentioned in the separately maintained credit sales register. On the report of the District Manager, domestic enquiry came to be initiated. It appears that even before the initiation of domestic enquiry, the amount of credit sales to the tune of Rs.4,90,000/- came to be recovered and intimated to the Corporation. On enquiry, the charges of misappropriation being proved, the respondent/corporation dismissed the petitioner from service on 6.9.2003. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the Appellate Authority of the respondent/corporation which came to be dismissed on 16.10.2004. On the request made by the petitioner, the Government of Karnataka referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court after recording the evidence of the parties and analyzing the evidence on record, allowed the reference in part by setting aside the dismissal order and directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner/workman into service with continuity of service and other consequential benefits however, labour Court has denied back-wages by way of punishment for alleged default on the part of the workman selling goods and commodities on credit basis without authority. 3. Being aggrieved, the workman is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel Sri Krishna Murthy appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner has acted on the instructions of the superior officers in the interest of the Corporation to give more profit margin. The bona-fide action of the petitioner was wrongly construed as misappropriation by the Corporation and enquiry proceedings were initiated. No adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioner to establish his case before the enquiry officer. The enquiry is totally vitiated and the workman/petitioner has been victimized for obediently following the instructions of the superior officers. It is contended that the goods/commodities were sold on credit basis and a separate register was maintained. No adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioner to establish his case before the enquiry officer. The enquiry is totally vitiated and the workman/petitioner has been victimized for obediently following the instructions of the superior officers. It is contended that the goods/commodities were sold on credit basis and a separate register was maintained. After receipt of the amount from the allottees, he used to raise the regular invoices/bills. At no point of time any loss was incurred by the Corporation due to the said act of the petitioner/workman in selling the goods on credit basis. It is further submitted that before the charge sheet was filed against the workman, the amount of credit sales to the tune of Rs.4,90,000/- was voluntarily paid by the workman/petitioner. No fault was committed by the workman at any point of time during his service. The Corporation/employer without conducting proper enquiry and not following the well established principles of law while conducting the enquiry, hastily passed an order of dismissal shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The labour Court though appreciated that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, as there was no financial loss incurred to the Corporation by the act of the workman selling the goods on credit basis, while setting aside the order of dismissal ought to have awarded back-wages. For no fault of him, he was compelled to undergo the ordeal of punishment of dismissal and the consequential effects. Having considered these aspects in the right perspective, the Labour Court allowed the reference, set-aside the dismissal order directing the employer to reinstate the workman into service. Petitioner has suffered a lot during the period of dismissal and his health has deteriorated. He being a diabetic patient with renal problems, has undergone amputation. The case of the workman deserves to be considered sympathetically and full back-wages are to be awarded, which is totally lost sight off by the labour Court while denying the back-wages. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the writ petition and to award full back-wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. 5. Per contra Sri GS Kannur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent justifying the award passed by the labour Court would contend that there is no cogent evidence placed on record by the workman that he was indulged in the activity of credit sales, only on the instructions of the superior officers. 5. Per contra Sri GS Kannur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent justifying the award passed by the labour Court would contend that there is no cogent evidence placed on record by the workman that he was indulged in the activity of credit sales, only on the instructions of the superior officers. It is self-interested oral evidence of the workman not substantiated by any material evidence. Admittedly, the workman had no authority to sell the goods on credit basis and to maintain a separate register. This fact has come to light only during the inspection conducted by the inspecting authority. No financial loss being suffered by the Corporation, would not absolve the workman from punishment for the proved misconduct. Respondent/Corporation has viewed the case of the petitioner/ workman sympathetically and has reinstated the workman immediately after passing of the award, complying with the terms of the award. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition and to affirm the award passed by the Labour Court. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced by both the parties at the bar and perused the material on record. It is evident from the record that the petitioner/workman was in charge of the wholesale godown and he sold the commodities on credit basis to the retail fair price shops by maintaining a separate register to that effect. This misconduct was proved in the enquiry conducted by the Corporation. In the situation, the Corporation dismissed the workman for the proved serious misconduct. The Labour Court appreciating the material on record held that by the act of the workman, the management has not been put to any loss once for all but on the contrary, within a span of 2 or 3 months, 90% of the shortfall has been made good by the workman and as such, the order of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct which may amount to partial misappropriation and as such, the management by dismissing the workman from service, has victimized the workman. However, while setting aside the order of dismissal, invoking the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to substantiate the punishment with lesser gravity, set-aside the order of dismissal denying the back-wages. However, while setting aside the order of dismissal, invoking the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to substantiate the punishment with lesser gravity, set-aside the order of dismissal denying the back-wages. If the contention of the petitioner that he acted on the instructions of the superior officers, is accepted without supported by any cogent evidence, it would lead to many anomalies. It is manifest that the workman has exceeded his authority. He had no powers to sell the goods on credit basis. If such misconduct is condoned, it would wreck havoc in the civic society encouraging the workman to involve themselves in such illegal activities though on the instructions of the superior officers or on such pretext. Ultimately, the workman would be the victim. The order of punishment of denying the back-wages would send a signal to such workmen not to indulge in any illegal activities/unauthorised practices. No person would be scot-free when the misconduct is proved. The Act of the workman would not have resulted in any financial loss to the corporation but such an action is in utter disregard to the conduct Rules, violating the fundamental discipline of the post held by him. It is not necessary that the punishment has to be imposed only when the employer incurs financial loss. Any proved misconduct should be punished accordingly, punishment is for reformation of the workman and is also deterrent in nature to avoid recurrence of such misconduct, a warning signal to the other workmen. 7. Taking the poor health conditions of the petitioner/workman, the Labour Court has sympathetically considered the case of the petitioner and reduced the punishment of dismissal by invoking Section 11-A of the Act. All the consequential and the continuity of service are awarded except back-wages. Even if the back-wages are awarded after giving a finding that there is partial misappropriation, no justification would be made in the order of the Labour Court. The order of the Labour Court denying the back-wages is of lesser gravity and is proportionate to the proved misconduct. This order is passed considering the health conditions of the workman and the respondent/employer has also reinstated the workman though the petitioner/workman is physically not in a position to discharge his duties. The order of the Labour Court denying the back-wages is of lesser gravity and is proportionate to the proved misconduct. This order is passed considering the health conditions of the workman and the respondent/employer has also reinstated the workman though the petitioner/workman is physically not in a position to discharge his duties. A sympathetic view is taken by the management in reinstating the workman without challenging the award as contended by the respondent’s counsel, appears to have some force. This Court also has all the sympathies for the ill health of the petitioner/workman, but cannot extend itself to encourage the action of the workman/petitioner while exceeding his powers in discharging his duties. 8. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the well considered and reasonable order passed by the labour Court. In the circumstances, no exception can be found with the impugned order. Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.