Award passed by the Tribunal set aside.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge in W.P. 609 of 1979. That writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein against the award of the first respondent in I.D. 21 of 1977 in so far as it related to the workman T. Sambandam. The appellant Union is advancing the cause of the workman. T. Sambandam. I.D. 21 of 1977 covered a controversy with reference to a number of workmen, including the workman T. Sambandam, of the second respondent. The question of non-employment of the workmen, including the workman T. Sambandam, was put in issue before the first respondent and the first respondent found no warrant for interference with regard to the non-employment of the workman T. Sambandam by the second respondent and dismissed the reference so far as the said workman is concerned. In the writ petition and consequently in this writ appeal, the court is not troubled with the other parts of the award concerning the other workmen. The learned single judge, who heard the writ petition, though found that there is no detailed discussion of the relevant questions, yet, chose to accept the ultimate decision of the first respondent and dismissed the writ petition.

2. Mr. A. L. Somayaji, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that there was no discussion at all of the relevant materials by the first respondent in the impugned award with regard to the case against the workman T. Sambandam and in the impugned award, there is no proper advertence to the propriety or otherwise of the punishment, imposed on the said workman by the second respondent, and learned counsel for the appellant want us to frown upon this type of cursory reasonings expressed by the firs respondent, in the impugned award. On going through the impugned award of the first respondent. We are obliged to say that the grievance expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is not without substance. Concerning the workman T. Sambandam, this is what the first respondent says in the impugned award.

"Serial No. 76 Thiru T. Sambandam, Conductor. The charge against him was that he did not issue 18 tickets and two half tickets all of 40 paise denomination in the bus MSQ 4157 plied on the route from Kolaiyar to Sirkali. A claim statement was filed by him contending that the enquiry was not proper. The charge was not substantiated and the punishment was excessive.

On perusal of the enquiry report and documents filed and also the evidence both oral and documentary, I find that the Enquiry Officer had come to a right conclusion. I do not find his conclusion is perverse. As regards punishment, as it is a serious misconduct of misappropriating the Corporation's amount, the punishment of dismissal is correct." *

The learned single Judge chose to accept the above discussion of the first respondent as satisfactory and not calling for interference, and the learned single Judge expressed his reasons as follows -

"Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this order is bereft of reasons and except to state that the Enquiry Officer has come to the right conclusion and the punishment of dismissal is correct there is no other reason given in the order. It is true that there is no detailed discussion. But having regard to the fact that the claim relating to Sambandam was discussed along with a number of persons, the Tribunal did not devote much time for consideration of this claim of the petitioner. But I am not satisfied that the order is liable to be set aside. What is now relevant is that the Tribunal was satisfied that there was a proper enquiry, that the oral and documentary evidence support the finding of the Enquiry Officer and it is in those circumstances the Tribunal said that the enquiry office had come to the right conclusion. Even on the question of punishment, the Tribunal has clearly stated that it is a serious misconduct of misappropriation and that therefore the punishment is correct. In the circumstanc