The Chief Justice:

These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned orders dated 14-9-1999 and 26-11-1998 respectively passed by the learned single Judge.

2. The respondent-workman was working as a Clerk in the appellant-Management. On 16-10-1981 at about 5.00 p.m. while he was leaving the factory premises, he was checked by the security personnel, and he was found to be in possession of a chain in his bag. The respondent-workman was charge-sheeted for committing the theft of the chain and after an enquiry in which he was given an opportunity of hearing, he was found guilty and dismissed on 2-11-1982. He raised an industrial dispute and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, which confirmed the finding of guilt. However, the labour court held that since the workman had been working for fifteen years and the value of the subject-matter of theft was only Rs.30/-, he should be reinstated with 50% backwages.

3. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that once the act of misappropriation was proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled sympathy to the workman or of considering his past unblemished record and the only punishment which should be given in such cases is dismissal. The Supreme Court also held that in cases of proved misappropriation, there is no question of considering the past record and the Labour Court cannot substitute the penalty of dismissal imposed by the employer in such cases even if the misappropriation is of a small amount, vide Janatha Bazaar South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. & Ors. v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha & ors. (2000 II LLJ 1395); Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1249 [LQ/SC/1996/432] ; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Basudeo Chaudhary & Anr. (1997 II SCC 370); Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Kala Singh & Ors. 1997 6 SCC 159 [LQ/SC/1997/845] . We are, therefore, of the view that the labour court was not correct in ordering the reinstatement of the workman with fifty per cent back wages.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the records, but this Court in writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the findings of fact of the labour court. Had this been a first appeal under Sec.96 C.P.C., we would have certainly gone through the entire evidence and re-appreciated the same to come to a different conclusion, but in writ jurisdiction we cannot do so and all that we have to look into is whether there is any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The finding of the labour court that the respondent-workman had committed the theft of a chain is based on detailed consideration of the evidence available on record as could be seen from a perusal of the award of the labour court where the evidence has been discussed in great detail. Hence, there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman vehemently argued that there was ill-will between the respondent-workman and the security personnel who intercepted him and searched him as the respondent-workman on an earlier occasion had complained against the said security personnel. We cannot accept this argument. Merely making a complaint against the security-staff does not mean that there was ill-will between the respondent-workman and the concerned security staff. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the other delinquent employees had been let off. The Labour Court has noted that the employees Dhanuskodi, Kandasami and Shanmugam have tendered apology and hence they were given minor punishment whereas the respondent-workman did not tender apology. Hence the cases are distinguishable. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the labour court was not justified in directing the reinstatement of the respondent-workman with fifty per cent backwages. We, therefore, modify the award of the labour court and the impugned order of the learned single Judge and direct that the respondent-workman shall stand dismissed from the date of his dismissal order passed by the appellant-Management.

5. The writ appeals (W.A. Nos. 384 of 2001 and & 72 of 1999) filed by the Management are allowed and the writ appeal (W.A. No.212 of 1999) filed by the respondent-workman is dismissed. Connected C.M.P. Nos.2914 of 2001 and 518 of 1999 are closed.