MANMOHAN SINGH LIBERHAN, C.J.

This appeal arises out of an order passed by die Hon'ble Single Judge, allowing the writ petition and upholding the dismissal of the employee as valid. 2. The appellant M. S. Sivaji was employed as typewriter mechanic to discharge the duties of visiting the customers and servicing the type-writers, which were purchased by them from the first respondent-company and were under contract of service. The employee was charge sheeted on May 4, 1984 for claiming travelling allowance and lunch allowance without visiting the customers and servicing their typewriters, i.e., Madras Race Club on April 2, 1984, Central Bank of India on March 14, 1984 and Dominic Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School on March 29, 1984. The employee further customers' signatures on the service cards to authenticate his visits to the customers, which he never did. Finding the explanation of the employee unsatisfactory, an enquiry was ordered for the above referred misconduct on May 14, 1984. The enquiry officer examined the employee's/customers' alleged signatories of service cards, who categorically stated that the service cards do not bear their signatures. 'Me enquiry officer finding the employee guilty of fraud, dishonesty, misconduct in not performing the duties for which he was deployed and claimed allowances by forging the customers' signatures on the service cards, issued a show-cause notice, dated September 10, 1984, why the punishment be not awarded. On failure of the employee to point out any extenuating circumstances in his favour, the employee was dismissed from service on September 30, 1984. Employee raised an industrial dispute, wherein he contended that the enquiry conducted was not fair, there was no rule from whom to get the signature on the service card, the alleged forged signatures were not sent for examination by the handwriting expert, consequently charges do not stand proved and the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be sustained.3. The Labour Court, after recording the evidence of parties, held that the enquiry was fair and proper. On the question of awarding the punishment, while exercising the powers under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court observed that, on reappraisal of evidence, the conclusion of the enquiry officer that the employee did not visit the customers for servicing the typewriters is valid and cannot be set aside. It further found that the service cards do not bear the signatures of the persons representing customers and the same are forged in the of the above finding the Labour Court unit at the employee was only guilty of using the service cards knowing the signatures therein having been forged to his advantage only and that he could not be imputed with the charge of actually forging the signatures of the customers. Resultantly, the Labour Court found that the charge has been partially proved; consequently converted the punishment of dismissal to reinstatement without back-wages, being proportionate to the charges attributed and proved.

4. The employer challenged the award of the Labour Court and, contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction while exercising its power under Section11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to interfere with the punishment awarded in view of the finding rendered that the enquiry was fair. The inference in the punishment is due to misplaced sympathy. The finding rendered by the Labour Court that the employee was not guilty of the charge of himself forging the signatures could not be sustained and is inconsistent with the finding affirmed by the Labour Court.

5. The employee, by way of defence to be treated as cross-objection, took the stand in this Court that no witness came forward to say that he has forged any of the customers' signature; there was no eye-witness in the charge sheet, the names of the customers only were given and not that of the person; no persons were named by the customers to sign in the service cards