JUDGMENT
Nishita Mhatre, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court granting respondent No. 1 reinstatement in his original post with continuity of service but without back-wages and the order of the Industrial Court allowing revision partly whereby the order of the Labour Court setting aside the reduction of pay was rejected.
2. Respondent No. 1 was employed as a ‘Gram Sevak’ on 16-10-1964 by the petitioner. A show-cause notice was issued to him on 31-12-1981 for misuse of public funds. The petitioner received a letter from the respondent admitting his guilt. However, he pleaded that it was due to some family disputes that he was not able to maintain his mental equilibrium and, therefore, this act had occurred. It appears that the petitioner allowed the respondent to continue in service by taking a lenient view in the matter. However, the respondent again indulged in the same act of misconduct and on 16-1-1982, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice for misappropriation of public funds. An enquiry was held against respondent No. 1. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and the respondent was asked to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated. The petitioner admitted his guilt. However, as the amounts were refunded by him to the petitioner, he pleaded that no action should be taken in the matter.
3. On 9-7-1985, the petitioner was removed from service. As a consequence, he filed a complaint on 3-9-1985 under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 claiming reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. An interim order was passed in the complaint whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent. The petitioner, accordingly, reinstated him, however on a reduced pay. The Labour Court allowed the complaint partly and directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman and set aside the order of the reduction in pay. The petitioner aggrieved by this order, approached the Industrial Court in revision. On 26-7-1994, the Industrial Court partly allowed the original application. The order of the Labour Court setting aside the reduction of pay was overruled and the order pertaining to reinstatement was confirmed.
4. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent having admitted his guilt by his letters of 8-6-1983 and 20-6-1983, there was no question of reinstating the petitioner in service. He has submitted that it would not be proper to reinstate such a person when misuse of public funds are involved. He has, therefore, assailed the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court granting reinstatement to the respondent.
5. It appears that the petitioner allowed the respondent to continue in service on account of the orders passed by the Labour Court in the interim application, albeit at a reduced pay. The Industrial Court had confirmed the order of the Labour Court but permitted the petitioner to continue the respondent at a reduced pay. However, both the courts below have granted reinstatement. The petitioner has already retired from service and while he was in service, he was paid reduced pay for the post. Once the petitioner has admitted his guilt, it is not proper to reinstate such a person when he has within the space of two months defalcated some amounts which were public funds. The orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court in so far as reinstatement of the petitioner is concerned, it will have to be set aside. However, since the petitioner has worked by virtue of the interim orders, no amount which has been paid to him shall be claimed from him by the petitioner.
6. In view of this, Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.