B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 702 of 2009, by which it has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant against the judgment and order dated 27.1.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition No. 14354 of 2007 of the Respondent-workman against the Award of the Labour Court dated 17.2.2005.
(3.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: (A) The Respondent employee while working as helper in the Appellant-Corporation in 1986 was subjected to disciplinary proceedings vide charge-sheet dated 4.2.1987 which contained the article of charges mainly on the allegations that on 3.10.1986 the Respondent stayed away beyond his duty hours at his place of employment i.e., Divisional Workshop and opened the door of the blacksmith Section with the aid of a duplicate key and pulled the gas cylinder trolley and equipment from blacksmith Section to the cash room along with four other employees of the Appellant-Corporation and opened the inner door of the cash room by cutting the padlock and used the gas cylinder equipment for committing the theft from cash chest. (B) The Divisional Traffic Officer was appointed as the enquiry officer by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 11.11.1993 to enquire into the charges leveled against the Respondent in the disciplinary proceedings. During the course of enquiry, the management witnesses clearly stated that the Respondent was present at the place of incident. On the basis of the material produced on behalf of the management, the enquiry officer found the charges leveled against the Respondent proved and accordingly the enquiry report was filed. (C) The Disciplinary Authority after considering the material on record concurred with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and after completing the legal formalities imposed the punishment of dismissal of the Respondent from service w.e.f. 14.2.1997. (D) The Respondent raised the industrial dispute. Thus, the State Government made a Reference to the Principal Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute and the same came to be registered as Reference No. 6 of 1999. On the basis of pleadings, the Labour Court framed various issues for its consideration, inter-alia, as to whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the Respondent was fair and proper. (E) The Labour Court by its order dated 20.11.2004 arrived at the conclusion that the departmental enquiry conducted against the Respondent was fair and proper. By its award dated 17.2.2005, the Court answered the reference in negative holding that there was sufficient evidence before the enquiry officer to hold that the Respondent with his colluders had actively involved in breaking and opening the door of the cash room and drilling the cash chest to commit the theft. The Respondent was caught red handed and hence the charges were rightly held to be proved. (F) Being aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court, the Respondent filed W.P. No. 14354 of 2007(LK) before the High Court which stood allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.1.2009 to the extent that the order of the dismissal was modified into an order of termination. The management was directed to pay the terminal benefits since the Respondent had retired from service. However, the learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that the Respondent was not entitled to any wages or other monetary benefits till the date of his termination. (G) Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the Respondent filed a Writ Appeal No. 702 of 2009 (L-KSRTC) under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The Division Bench vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.10.2009 allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent quashing the award of the Labour Court and reversing the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench proceeded to hold that the Respondent was entitled to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits. However, since the Respondent had retired from service, he was entitled to 50% of the back wages for the periods from 14.2.1997 (i.e. the date of dismissal) till the date of his retirement (i.e. 31.7.2007). He was also entitled to consequential benefits of retirement. Hence, this appeal. ;