Vineet Kothari, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Order dated 9.2.2011 made in I.D. No. 102 of 2009 on the file of the Presiding Officer, II Additional, Labour Court, Bangalore and also the Award dated 31.12.2011 made in I.D. No.102 of 2009 on the file of Second Additional Labour Court, Bangalore and a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to extend all the consequential benefits upon quashing the award as if the Petitioner was not removed and to extend the benefits like full back wages, Seniority, increments and all terminal benefits to meet the ends of justice.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that he had joined the services of the Respondent-Company as Group-B Mechanic at KGF in the year 1974. He earned several Promotions from time to time. Finally, he was promoted as Stores Superintendent in the Stores Department of the Railway Coach Division, Bangalore. Totally, he has completed 34 years of service and maintained absolute integrity, devotion and rendered unblemished service. It is further case that on 10.9.2008 at about 8.05 a.m. when the Petitioner was working in the Stores Division, three persons from the Security Department came and searched the table drawer used by the Petitioner and recovered a sum of'1,31,580, which belong to the Petitioner. It was also alleged that the Petitioner has involved Chit Fund Business inside the Company premises and later he was kept under suspension alleging that he was running Chit Fund business in the Company premises. The Petitioner was also issued with an Article of charges on 22.9.2008 alleging that he was involved in Chit Fund business in the premises of the Respondent-Company. On 6.10.2008 he submitted his written reply stating that he has not conducting any Chit Fund business or any personal unauthorized business within the Company premises.

3. The Disciplinary Authority not satisfied with the reply submitted by the Petitioner, proceeded to hold an enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was commenced from 22.10.2008. On behalf of the Respondent-Company, one Sri. Gopal, Secretary Intelligence Subedar was examined as MW1, Sri. K.R. Ganesh, Assistant Security Officer was examined as MW2 and Sri. G.V. Chandrashekar was examined as MW3. It is further alleged that at the Domestic Enquiry, the Petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine MW3, the enquiry was conducted in utter disregard to the Principles of Natural Justice and the charges levelled against him does not amount to any misconduct. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and do not based on the legal evidence. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted the Report on 5.2.2009 and held that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are proved. The Respondent after issuing Second Show Cause Notice dated 13.9.2009, had removed the Petitioner from the services on 16.4.2009 not disqualifying for future employment.

4. Aggrieved by the said Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Petitioner has raised Industrial Dispute under the provisions of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Dispute Act (for short 'the Act') and the same was resisted by the Respondent-Company by filing the Objections. The II Additional Labour Court by an Order dated 9.2.2011 held that the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the Petitioner is fair and proper and posted the matter for evidence of the Petitioner on victimization.

5. The Labour Court considering the entire material on record by the impugned Award dated 31.12.2011 has rejected the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 10(4-A) of the Act. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed for the relief sought for.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the Us.

7. Sri. Subramanya Bhat, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that on 11/12.9.2008, the Statement of four Employees of the Respondent-Company were recorded as a part of the preliminary investigation, who have stated that