Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition impugning the award of the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court -I, Gurgaon. He was working as Forklift Driver with Respondent No. 2 with effect from 1.1.1988 and was drawing the salary of Rs. 4,200/ -per month. He was served with a charge -sheet on 29.10.1997 with the allegation that he has indulged in theft, which charge was denied by the Petitioner. An enquiry followed in which the charge against the Petitioner was established and he was issued a second show cause notice for inflicting the punishment upon him. Reply was filed by the Petitioner to the said show cause notice but Respondent No. 2 dismissed him from service. He then raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. 2. The Respondent - management justified the termination of the services of the Petitioner on the ground that since the charge against him stood established in a domestic enquiry initiated by them, which was fair and proper, and where sufficient opportunity was given to the Petitioner, the action in the given set of circumstances was just and appropriate. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1 Whether the management has conducted a fair and proper enquiry as alleged against the Petitioner? OPM 2 Whether termination of services of Sh. Ved Pal is justified and if not, what relief, he is entitled to? OPM 3 Relief. 3. Thereafter, the Tribunal determined that in view of the fact that the enquiry against the Petitioner clearly established him guilty, and then by resorting to the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act interfered with the order of punishment by taking a lenient view and directed the Respondent No. 2 to pay him a sum of Rs. 1 lakh by way of compensation so as to settle the equities between the parties. 4. In the instant writ petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that the impugned award deserves to be set aside. He contended that the Tribunal itself has noticed that in the circumstances in which the Petitioner was placed there was hardly any occasion for him to indulge in theft. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perusing the impugned award, I do not find any infirmity therein. The charge against the Petitioner stood established in a domestic enquiry and the Petitioner could not show any material from where it could be inferred that such an enquiry was not fair and that he was prejudiced in any manner by non -following of the procedure by Respondent No. 2 in holding the domestic enquiry. There has been no mala fides against the Petitioner except to say vaguely that there were some forces inimical to him. 6. An employee who indulges in an act of theft while in employment shakes the very confidence of his employer and in which eventuality the employer is not obliged to keep him in service and the termination in such situation, whether after a prolonged length of service or not, is justified. The Tribunal, however, has still interfered with the order of dismissal of the services of the Petitioner by awarding a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. 7. In the given set of circumstances, I am of the view that even though dismissal itself was justified, yet since the Tribunal has tried to justify the equities in favour of the Petitioner, I do not deem it appropriate in the given set of circumstances to interfere and unsettle the equities. 8. The petition is dismissed.;