ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, Cuddalore, dated 06.10.2010 made in I.D.No.15 of 2005. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are that the workman involved in this case, namely, S.Sekar, was working as a Salesman in the first respondent management, Sithilingamadam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited. While so, a charge memorandum was issued to him on 29.09.2003 containing three charges. The first charge against the workman was that on various dates, mentioned in the statement of imputation of misconduct, the workman was unauthorisedly absent. The second charge was that even though he attended work on various periods, which are mentioned in the statement of imputation of misconduct, he did not perform his work that of the Salesman. The third charge against the workman is that even though he sold certain items that were verified during handing over of stock, he did not deposit all the sale proceeds and misappropriated a sum of Rs.15,961.50 ps. 3. The workman submitted his explanation to the charges on 01.11.2003. He denied the first two charges. He contends that he never remained unauthorisedly absent. On the periods mentioned in the statement of imputation of misconduct, he duly performed his duty, and the allegation to the contrary is incorrect. As far as the charge relating to misappropriation is concerned, it is his specific case that he was suddenly suspended, and the charge was handed over to the next Salesman. The next Salesman, at the time of handing over the charge, pointed out some of the goods and the stock and said that those stocks were damaged and rotten, and therefore, he will not be in a position to sell those stocks and refuse to take stock of the same. Under the said circumstances, the officials, who were present, made an entry as if those stocks of various goods were already sold, and that is now sought to be projected as the sale and misappropriation and, therefore, denied the charge. 4. Under the said circumstances, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The first date of enquiry was fixed on 09.11.2003. On the said date, the workman sought an adjournment, and therefore, the enquiry was adjourned to 16.11.2003. On 16.11.2003, the Enquiry Officer asked for the explanation of the workman in respect of the same charges. The workman almost reiterated the same explanation. Under the said circumstances, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The first date of enquiry was fixed on 09.11.2003. On the said date, the workman sought an adjournment, and therefore, the enquiry was adjourned to 16.11.2003. On 16.11.2003, the Enquiry Officer asked for the explanation of the workman in respect of the same charges. The workman almost reiterated the same explanation. Apart from the explanation, there was some interaction between the workman and the Enquiry Officer, which was also recorded in the proceedings. 5. The Enquiry Officer stopped with the same and submitted his report on the same day i.e., 19.11.2003 holding that the charge Nos.1 and 2 were not proved and as far as the explanation of the workman relating to the charge No.3 is concerned, the same is not acceptable and from the very explanation, it can be seen that the workman would be responsible for the certain shortages and therefore, held that the third charge as proved. Based on the said report, a second show-cause notice was issued on 22.11.2003. The workman submitted his further explanation on 11.12.2003. After considering his further explanation, by a notice, dated 03.01.2004, a personal hearing was also granted. During the personal hearing, the workman again submitted the same written explanation. During the personal hearing, the Disciplinary Authority also interacted with the workman and asked certain questions and got the answers in respect thereof. After that, considering the same, by the order dated 03.01.2004, the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the Enquiry Report and held that given the charge No.3, punished with removal from service with effect from 31.01.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the workman raised a dispute. The conciliation did not fructify in any resolution. 6. Thereafter, the claim statement, filed by the workman, was taken on file as I.D.No.15 of 2005. The claim statement was resisted by the respondent management by a detailed counter. The Labour Court took up the matter for enquiry. During the enquiry, on behalf of the workman, he examined himself as W.W.1 and Exs.W-1 to W-12 were marked. On behalf of the management, one Ezhumalai, Special Officer was examined as M.W.1 and Exs.M-1 to M-26 were marked. The Labour Court, thereafter, considered the case of the parties. The Labour Court took up the matter for enquiry. During the enquiry, on behalf of the workman, he examined himself as W.W.1 and Exs.W-1 to W-12 were marked. On behalf of the management, one Ezhumalai, Special Officer was examined as M.W.1 and Exs.M-1 to M-26 were marked. The Labour Court, thereafter, considered the case of the parties. It held that as per the Enquiry Report and the other documents filed on the side of the respondent, the petitioner failed to remit the sale proceeds of Rs.15,961.50 ps and therefore, the charge of misconduct and the misappropriation of sale proceeds is proved. Therefore, given the proven charge, the non-employment is justified and denied any relief to the workman. Before the above findings, the Labour Court also found that due opportunity was given to the workman in the enquiry. 7. Heard Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for the workman and Mr.S.Gopinath, learned Counsel for the first respondent management. 8. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for the workman, would submit that even if answer to the first question, concerning the reasonable opportunity given to the Domestic Enquiry, is found to be in favour of the management, still, the Labour Court has to exercise its power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and find that whether there was any evidence in support of the charge. In this case, in the Domestic Enquiry, no documents were marked, and no witnesses were examined. Therefore, this was a case of no evidence. When the workman denied the charge and made an explanation in detail, picking one or two sentences or statements in the explanation or picking up one or two statements made in the personal enquiry, the charge cannot be held to be proved. Even in an ex parte scenario, it is the bounden duty of the management to discharge prima facie its obligation to prove the charge. The management should have examined at least one witness and marked the basic documents as to the shortage of the products amounting to Rs.15,961.50 ps. There is no evidence on record, and therefore, this Court should interfere with the award of the Labour Court and grant the relief of reinstatement with back wages. Since the workman has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2019, all the benefits in full should be granted to the workman. 9. There is no evidence on record, and therefore, this Court should interfere with the award of the Labour Court and grant the relief of reinstatement with back wages. Since the workman has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2019, all the benefits in full should be granted to the workman. 9. Per contra, Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Counsel for the first respondent management, would submit that the entire punishment was sustained based on the third charge. A perusal of the said charge, it can be seen that the workman, after having sold the said stock, did not pay the amount due. The learned Counsel would draw the attention of this Court to Ex.M-13 , which is the proceedings of the management while considering the further explanation of the petitioner after the second show-cause notice. He would specifically rely upon the answer given by the workman that at least in respect of rice, the workman admitted that it was not rotten and was in a good condition. He further admitted that the sale of the said rice is reflected in the ration cards. 10. When a further question was put to the workman about whether the balance amount was paid to the bank, he admitted that only part of the amount was paid by him. Therefore, when he paid part amount and accepted that at least, one commodity namely, rice, was not rotten and was fit enough to be supplied, then, his original contentions stood falsified and given the fact of the workman himself paying a part amount, the view taken by the Domestic Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Labour Court cannot be found fault with. Once the charge of misappropriation is proved even partly, then that is a serious offence warranting removal from service, and accordingly, the award of the Labour Court need not be interfered. 11. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. 12. In the Domestic Enquiry, it can be seen that the enquiry was first held on 09.11.2003, and it was adjourned to 16.11.2003. On 16.11.2003, nothing happened except for the questioning of the workman by the Enquiry Officer. When the workman denied the charges and gave his explanation, the Enquiry Officer ought to have continued the enquiry by giving opportunities to the management to produce its witness. On 16.11.2003, nothing happened except for the questioning of the workman by the Enquiry Officer. When the workman denied the charges and gave his explanation, the Enquiry Officer ought to have continued the enquiry by giving opportunities to the management to produce its witness. However, the Enquiry Officer thought it fit to return a finding by submitting his report on the same day. Thus, it can be seen that the finding of the Domestic Enquiry Officer was absolutely without any evidence. Therefore, there was no evidence to sustain the charge. 13. As far as the answers that are given during the interaction at the time of personal hearing are concerned, all questions have to be taken into account. The Disciplinary Authority, in the personal hearing, questioned as to the proceedings that happened in the enquiry. The questions start from the suspension and as to whether subsistence allowance was paid or not. Further questions were asked as to whether, during the enquiry, proper opportunity was granted or not. In that context, the pin-pointed questions were asked regarding the commodities, which were found to be short. It is essential to extract questions Nos. 20 to 24, which read as follows:- 14. Thus, even the other questions have to be read in tandem. The other questions and answers have to be read as a whole in conjunction with the explanation given by the workman. Therefore, even from the above questions, which were pointed out by the learned Counsel for the management, it cannot be said that there was a specific question as to whether the workman admitted the shortage of Rs.15,961.50 ps and whether he is paying the part amount or not. Therefore, except for the fact that in the questions, the workman said to have accepted that in respect of rice alone, the same was rotten, nothing can be said to be admitted. Therefore, that by itself cannot be taken as admission of any guilt or admission of the charge. In the absence of the admission of guilt, it cannot be said that the management has any evidence on record, even as of today, to prove the charge. In the Domestic Enquiry, no witnesses were examined, and no documents were marked. Therefore, when the Domestic Enquiry was based on no evidence, it cannot be said that it was fair and proper. In the Domestic Enquiry, no witnesses were examined, and no documents were marked. Therefore, when the Domestic Enquiry was based on no evidence, it cannot be said that it was fair and proper. In this case, in the counter, the management did not pray for any opportunity to let in evidence on the merits of the charge. 15. Firstly, the award of the Labour Court is erroneous in law since it finds that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and proper. There is no enquiry worth the name was conducted except for an interaction with the workman on one particular date. No witnesses were examined, and no documents were marked. This is not a case where the workman admitted the charge. In this case, no opportunity is pleaded by the management for proving the charge before the Labour Court and as such, considering the other evidence that was brought before the Labour Court does not arise. Nor did the Labour Court indulge in the exercise of passing a preliminary award and permitted the parties to let in evidence concerning the merits of the charges. For all the foregoing reasons, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be interfered with. The non-employment is unjustified. 16. The workman was non-employed in the year 2003. He has also attained the age of superannuation. The non-employment remained unjustified only because the Domestic Enquiry was not fair and proper and for want of pleading by the management to let in evidence on merit. Therefore, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that instead of reinstatement with back wages, the workman shall be paid compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. It is seen that the workman was receiving a sum of Rs.2,654/- as the last drawn wages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in O.P. Bhandari Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 337 , held that a sum equivalent to 39 months salary would be appropriate compensation on the principle that the workman should be able to receive at least half of the salary by way of interest amount if the compensation amount is deposited in the bank account. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in Workmen Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner Private Limited and Anr. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in Workmen Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner Private Limited and Anr. (1990) 3 SCC 565 also directed the ordering of an additional sum towards loss of future employment. Because the last drawn salary was also in the year 2004, the workman shall be paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. The said sum shall be paid within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a web copy of this order without waiting for a certified copy of this order. 18. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.