JUDGMENT : M.I. ARUN, J.:— Aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No. 22781 of 2010, the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent is one of the workmen in the factory of the appellant. There were disputes between the employees and the management. It resulted in disruption of work in the factory of the appellant. Consequently, the appellant initiated action against 16 persons including the respondent herein. They were also charge sheeted. In fact, there were serious charges against other workmen including one Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar. However, the charges against the said Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar was dropped. The management proceeded against the respondent herein and removed him from service. This, according to the respondent, is disproportionate and amounts to treating alike differently and is an unfair labour practice. 3. The respondent, in the enquiry, was found to be guilty of committing dents on the wheel house of body nos. 225 end 258 of Cars being manufactured in the appellant's factory. These dents were serious quality defects which would cause safety problems to the customers. He was also found guilty of indulging in riotous behaviour and indulged in activities of abusing, threatening and intimidating the superior and obstructing other employees from doing their normal work. 4. Based on the said enquiry, the appellants removed the respondent from service. 5. The appellant filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 61(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 before the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, seeking approval of its action dismissing the respondent from service holding him guilty of misconduct. The Additional Industrial Tribunal found that the enquiry was fair and proper and the respondent was guilty of the charges alleged. However, it found that there were more serious charges made against another workman Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar than the respondent herein. However, the appellant had let the said Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar go scot-free but proceeded against the respondent. This action of the appellant was found to be not bona fide and discriminatory. It was held to be an act of unfair labour practice and victimization, and accordingly, its application was rejected. 6. B.G. Shiva Kumar than the respondent herein. However, the appellant had let the said Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar go scot-free but proceeded against the respondent. This action of the appellant was found to be not bona fide and discriminatory. It was held to be an act of unfair labour practice and victimization, and accordingly, its application was rejected. 6. Challenging the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, the appellant herein preferred the instant Writ Petition No. 22781 of 2010. The learned Single Judge agreed with the reasoning given by the Additional Industrial Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the said order of dismissal, this writ appeal is preferred. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant's counsel in the course of his arguments contended that there was unrest among the labourers which resulted in disruption of work in the factory of the appellants. Consequently, several workmen including the respondent herein and Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar indulged in disobedience to superiors, prevented others from working and disrupted the production activities. In the process, the allegations made against the said Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar were of serious nature. Nevertheless, the said Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar did not cause any willful damage to the property of the appellant herein whereas, the respondent herein caused severe dents to Cars being manufactured which resulted in damage to property of the appellant. Damaging the property of the appellant was not the resolution passed by any trade union nor was supported by them. It was a completely deviant behavior on the part of the respondent herein. The acts of the said Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar and others were as per the decision of the union. The act of the respondent was his own individual behavior not related to what the union had decided. The Additional Industrial Tribunal and the learned single Judge failed to take note of this fact. In the light of the damage being caused to the property of the appellant by causing dents to the Cars under production, the action taken against the respondent herein is valid, not discriminatory and there is no victimization or unfair labour practice. 9. The respondent has contended that the charges against the said Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar were more severe in nature but all charges have been dropped against him. 9. The respondent has contended that the charges against the said Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar were more severe in nature but all charges have been dropped against him. On the contrary, action has been initiated against the respondent herein. This action amounts to unfair labour practice which is discriminatory and it victimizes the respondent herein. On the said ground, the respondent sought to justify the decision of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru and the order of the learned Single Judge. 10. We find merit in the contention raised by the appellant herein. The action of the respondent in causing dents to the Cars under manufacture puts the respondent herein in a different category’ than that of other employees including that of Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar. The acts of the said Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar and others were in pursuance of the decision of the trade union wherein there was non-cooperation for proper functioning of the factory. But it did not mandate causing physical damage to the property of the factory. In the instant case, admittedly, the respondent has caused damage to the property of the appellant-Company. This puts his action in a different category from that of Sri. B.G. Shiva Kumar and others. His action has not been supported by the trade union. Thus, it cannot be construed as an act of unfair labour practice or discriminatory in nature. Hence, the management was justified in seeking the removal of the respondent herein from service. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 22781 of 2010 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Consequently, a writ of certiorari is issued and the order dated 28.06.2010 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in Serial Application No. 7 of 2007 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition is quashed and the appellant is permitted to dismiss the respondent. No order as to cost.