( 1 ) THE appellants, while in employment of the respondent-Company, were charge-sheeted for committing theft and passing of watch parts in order to make wrongful gains. On the basis of the enquiry, the appellants were dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the orders of their dismissal, the appellants filed writ petitions in this Court alleging therein that they were not afforded a fair opportunity of defending themselves and that the admissions made by them while in police custody were wrongly made the basis to hold them guilty. It was further contended that on account of the pendency of criminal cases, they were handicapped in putting their defence effectively before the Inquiry Officer. The learned Single Judge vide the orders impugned in these appeals, came to the conclusion that the Inquiry Officer had not sifted the evidence properly to ascertain the liability in the context of the charge framed against the appellants. The veracity of their evidence was also held to be not properly considered. The Disciplinary Authority was stated to have been carried away by the findings of the Inquiry Officer without adverting to the question as to how it had arrived to those findings. The alleged confessional statements were held to have been wrongly relied upon by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge concluded"justice has not been meted out to the delinquents at the appropriate stage when it should have been extended. It is like from Caesar to Caesar". After holding that the punishment imposed upon the appellants on the basis of the enquiry was not justified, the learned Single Judge held that:"13. The consequential fall out of the above finding would be to set aside the order of dismissal and direct the reconsideration of the matter afresh. But, it may not take us anywhere as the management has in clear terms expressed that they have lost confidence in these employees. Whatever explanation be offered explaining the statement made by the employees which was relied on by the management, one cannot find fault with the management if they believed that it contained some shreds of truth. It may be hence that they stated that they have lost confidence in these employees. In view of all these that has transpired it can hardly stated that the management is not justified in stating so as well. If so, even if the matter is remitted back for fresh disposal the employees may not earn an order of reinstatement. This Court cannot order reinstatement of the employees even if the order of dismissal is totally illegal. In such circumstances no purpose will be served by directing a fresh disposal of the appeal. It will be a mere prolongation of agony. It will benefit none. Perhaps this may be a case where proper relief would be award of monetary compensation. 14. As noted earlier the dismissal order has been passed by the authorities without applying their mind and without considering the case of the petitioners as required by law. Hence they can claim to have been relegated to the status as if their contract of employment still subsists and initiate fresh proceedings for consequential monetary relief. As this Court is not directing a fresh consideration of the case of the employees by the employer the employees cannot be conferred with such a right. Hence ends of justice will be met if in lieu of the said relief the delinquents are awarded compensation. The petitioners will hence be awarded compensation in lieu of their claim for reinstatement and consequential relief, a sum reckoned at the rate of one month's salary for every completed year of service, the rate of salary being the last drawn salary. The petitioners will be entitled to claim the same till the date of the above judgment. Whatever amount that is paid to the workers in the course of this proceeding will be set off from the amount due as quantified above and the balance amount alone will be paid to them. T