The gravity of the offense and the loss of employer's confidence can warrant termination even if the Labour Court suggests a minor penalty.

( 1 ) THE U. P. State Road Transport corporation is in appeal against the summary rejection of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the corporation. The respondent no. 1 being an employee of U. P. State Road Transport corporation moved the Labour Court against an order of termination and the Labour court though sustained the charges of misconduct of the respondent no. 1 but retracted the said order of termination and imposed a minor penalty in regard to gross acts of misdemeanor. Unfortunately, however, by reason of the summary rejection of the writ petition, no reason whatsoever is available on record and as such it would be convenient to advert to the factual details at this juncture to appreciate the contentions raised in the matter.

( 2 ) ON the factual score, it appears that the respondent no. 1 was appointed in the U. P. State Road Transport corporation in the post of Assistant storekeeper in the year 1980. In early october, the aforesaid respondent no. 1 was transferred to the post of Store-keeper in Kashi Depot of the appellant-Corporation. Whilst posted at Kashi, respondent no. 1 was, however, found guilty of misappropriating the property of corporation by reason of sale of 170 litters of mobile oil and a drum illegally. The records depict that the Corporation, in accordance with the Service and conduct Rules, did conduct an inquiry in the matter and at the conclusion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer came to a finding of guilt of the delinquent employee. Needless to record that the respondent no. 1 submitted his explanation and was offered personal hearing as well, but there is existing no dispute as regards the shortage of oil and the missing drum whilst the same was in custody of the respondent no. 1. Whereas the respondent no. 1 in his explanation pleaded no mala fide motive but some negligence, the Inquiry Officer found it to be a deliberate act and as such, recommended for termination of service. Such a recommendation was accepted by the corporation and an order of termination was passed against the delinquent employee upon consideration of the entire materials on record.

( 3 ) THE factual score further depicts that the respondent no. 1 raised an industrial dispute against the order of dismissal and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, varanasi, in terms of his order, dated 16th april, 1993 referred the dispute to the labour Court for adjudication. The dispute being, "whether the action of employers to terminate the services of their workman, Shri Mohan Lal Gupta, s/o Shri bechan Prasad Gupta, w. e. f. 4. 8. 89 is proper and valid? If not, then to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and with what further details?

( 4 ) ON receipt of the notice from the labour Court, the respondent no. 1 being a workman, filed the written statement wherein he has stated that the employer always wanted to get the work done contrary to rules and there was a transfer voucher for bringing a drum to Kashi depot and after bringing the same he had made entry to the effect. The defence of respondent no. 1 centres round principally, however, the stand that a large quantity of mobile leaked out of the drum during transit and as such there was a shortfall. The delinquent employee is supposed to have brought 170 litres of mobile oil on top of a public bus in a drum which was leaking and hence the shortage. The proceedings of the Labour Court depict that when asked as to why he has brought the drum containing a hole, the employee had no answer whatsoever. During the course of inquiry as it appears from the labour Courts order, the workman admitted that 141 litres of mobile oil were short. There is no explanation as to why empty drum was not found at the time of verification and by reason therefore, the labour Court in its order recorded that the workman has accepted all these charges and there is no doubt about the validity of the inquiry proceedings. In line on this aspect, the Labour Court concluded : "therefore the