( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Munshaw for the petitioner Corporation and Mr. M. B. Gandhi for the respondent workman. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award made by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 81 of 1992 dated 21st April, 1997 wherein, in reformative measure, the labour court has granted reinstatement in favour of the respondent with continuity of service without back wages for the intervening period. Under the said award, the labour court has also imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual increments of the workman with future effect. This petition was admitted by this Court on 28th August, 1997 and while admitting the petition, notice as to interim relief was issued by this court. Thereafter, this Court passed following interim order on 24th November, 1997 :"heard Mr. Munshaw for the petitioner and Mr. Gandhi for the respondent. This petition has already been admitted by my brother Calla, J. on 28th August, 1997 when he also issued notice as to interim relief. The respondent workman has filed a reply on the first returnable date placing on record that he is unemployed since the date of termination. In that view of the matter, the respondent will have to be paid his last drawn wages under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. "

( 2 ) THE petitioner is pressing for the stay of the impugned award. Hence, the following order: interim stay of the impugned award on the respondent being paid his last drawn wages under section 17b of the ID Act. The impugned award is dated 21st April, 1997. It was published on 10. 7. 1997. The award states that it has to come into force within 30 days from the date of publication. Hence, the respondent will be paid his last drawn wages from 10th August, 1997 onwards. This is with a rider that the petitioner is at liberty to employ the respondent without prejudice until the matter is further heard in a post which will not involve any financial transactions. The matter to be placed on final hearing board on 9. 2. 1998. Mr. Munshaw states that the arrears will be cleared on or before 31st December, 1997 including the payment under section 17b of the Act for the month of December, 1997. The payment thereafter will be made by the end of each subsequent month. "

( 3 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Gandhi submits that in view of the award of reinstatement and also in view of the observations made by this Court in the interim order dated 24. 11. 1997, the respondent workman has been reinstated in service and at present, the respondent is in service with the Corporation.

( 4 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that it is a clear case of misappropriation, admitted by the workman and yet the labour court has granted reinstatement and it amounts to undue sympathy shown by the labour court. According to Mr. Munshaw, in such circumstances, in view of such facts of the case, the labour court ought not to have exercised the powers under section 11-A of the ID Act, 1947. He also submits that the labour court ought not to have granted reinstatement in favour of such a person who has committed serious misconduct of misappropriation. Except these submissions, no other submissions were made by the learned advocate Mr. Munshaw on behalf of the petitioner. No decisions were cited by the learned advocate Mr. Munshaw before this Court.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Mahendrabhai Gandhi appearing for the respondent workman has submitted that because of the compelling circumstances and sickness of the wife of the respondent, he was in need of some amount for the medical treatment of his ailing wife and, therefore, since the workman was the victim of compelling circumstances, he was constrained to use the said amount for the treatment of his wife which was returned back by him to the corporation within some short period and, therefore, the labour court was right in exercising the powers under sect