( 1 ) THESE are cross petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution for challenging the judgment and award dated 2-8-2000 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1070 of 1996 by which the Labour Court set aside the penalty of dismissal passed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation against Manibhai Ranjitbhai Makwana (hereinafter referred to as `the workman) who was working as Fitter Helper under the Corporation and substituted the same by penalty of simple discharge with a further direction that over and above the gratuity and provident fund, the Corporation shall also pay the workman Rs. 50,000. 00 in lieu of reinstatement.

( 2 ) THE workman was employed by the Corporation on the post of Fitter Helper. A departmental inquiry was held against the workman on the charge that the workman had with an intent to commit theft, hidden three angles of the Corporation worth Rs. 300. 00 at another place. Ultimately, the workman came to be dismissed by the order dated 1-2-1994. In the reference before the Labour Court, the workman admitted the legality of the inquiry, but challenged the finding of the disciplinary authority. However, in view of the admission made by the workman himself in writing on 19-10-1993 that he had concealed the angles in question, the Labour Court held that the finding of the employer was not without any basis. The workman claimed the benefit of discretionary power of the Labour Court under section 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act. The employer contended that in view of the gravity of the misconduct and also in view of the fact that the workman had earlier committed 12 defaults in the past, the penalty of dismissal imposed by the Corporation was proper. The Labour Court, however, held that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate and harsh and was required to be substituted by the penalty of simple discharge knowing fully well that under simple discharge the workman would get the benefits of gratuity, provident fund and other benefits. But the Labour Court went further and awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. It is that part of the award regarding payment of Rs. 50,000. 00 which is under challenge in Special Civil Application No. 687 of 2001.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, the workman has challenged the award in Special Civil Application No. 7377 of 2001 contending that the Labour Court ought to have directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman with continuity of service.

( 4 ) MR Mitul Shelat learned counsel for the Corporation has vehemently submitted that when the charge of attempt to commit theft was proved against the workman, there was no justification for interfering with the penalty of dismissal and in any case even if dismissal was too harsh and was required to be substituted by penalty of simple discharge, the Labour Court ought not to have awarded the sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 in lieu of reinstatement when the finding about the guilt of the respondent delinquent was already proved at the departmental inquiry and was not faulted by the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the Corporation has placed heavy reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Janatha Bazar vs. Secretary, Sahakari Naukarara Sangh, AIR 2000 SC 3129, in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Subash Chandra Sharma, AIR 2000 SC 1163, and also on the decision of the Apex Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. BS Hullikatti in 2001 (2) SCC 574.

( 5 ) MR Dastoor learned counsel for the workman submitted that the writing dated 19-10-1993 was misconstrued by the disciplinary authority as well as by the Labour Court. The angles in question were removed at the instance of Mr Solanki, the Head Fitter. Moreover, the angles in question were not removed outside the premises of the Corporation but they were only shifted to another place. Hence there was no fault on the part of the workman and therefore he was entitled