ORDER :— The special leave petition is directed against the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 2305 of 1986 filed by the petitioner in the High Court of Allahabad against the award of the Labour Court in a reference made to it under Section 4(K) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the Act) in favour of the respondent employee and substituting the order of termination of service of the respondent by an order of reinstatement together with 75% back wages. The, respondent too had filed a writ petition i.e. W. P. No. 6769 of 1986 to challenge the Labour Courts award in so far as it provided only for 75% back wages instead of full back wages. The High Court heard both the Writ Petitions together and by a common order dismissed both the petitions. This special leave petition is directed against the dismissal of W.P. No. 2305 of 1986 and there is no challenge by the respondent against the dismissal of his writ petition W. P. No. 6769 of :1986.

2. Notice was ordered on the special leave petition and the respondent, appeared in person and has filed his affidavit in reply. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and after a careful consideration of the matter we find that the order of the High Court declining to quash the award passed by the Labour Court dose not call for any interference at our hands.

3. It is true that the respondent was issued charge memos on three different occasions viz. 23-3-1981, 30-4-1981 and 21-7-1981, and separate enquiries were held in respect of the charges contained in each of the three charge memos. It is equally true that the charges framed against the respondent pertained to acts of major misconduct. All the charges were held proved in the respective enquiries and the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has held that the enquiries conformed to the statutory prescriptions and the principles of natural justice and were not vitiated in any manner and as such the findings rendered by the Inquiry Officer and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority were not open to challenge. Even so the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court held as follows :-

"Having regard to all these circumstances and the reasons given above I would hold that the order of termination was not justified in the circumstances of this case. I would therefore set aside the order of termination of service and direct that the workman shall be reinstated within one month the award becoming enforceable. The workman has unfortunately to blame himself for much of the bad blood which has developed between him and the management and therefore his conduct, motivated by ideals which are not relevant has been far from satisfactory. In so far as it was rough, bordering on rudeness and with highly exaggerated sense of his duties. In these circumstances it will meet the ends of justice if back wages to the extent of 75% are allowed to the workman. I would make my award accordingly but there shall be no order as to costs."

4. The High Court, while sustaining the award passed by the Labour Court, adverted to Section 6(2A) of the Act which is analogous to Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act and pointed out that the section confers wide powers on the Labour Court to interfere with an order of discharge or dismissal of a workman and to direct the setting aside of the discharge or dismissal and ordering the reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions as it may think fit, including the substitution of any lesser punishment for discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require and as such the Labour Court was well within its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of termination of services of the respondent and instead ordering his reinstatement together with 75% back wages.

5. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the order of the High Court suffers from three errors viz. (1) the High Court has proceeded on the basis that there was only