The court can interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act if the punishment is mala fide, so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the court, or if it falls under the exceptions carved out by the division bench of the court in State Bank of Hyderabad vs. V. K. Gadgil.

( 1 ) IN the present Writ Petition the orders passed by the 3rd respondent/ management dated: 15-4-1991 discharging the petitioner from service are assailed.

( 2 ) ORIGINALLY, there existed Adoni Cotton Mills at Adoni. The petitioner worked in the said Mills from 1957 to 1966. However, the said Mill was closed and subsequently it was taken over by the National Textiles Corporation, a govt. of India Undertaking and it started functioning in the name and style of ananthapur Cotton Mills from 1976. On 18-4-1981, the petitioner was discharged from the service and the said order was challenged by the petitioner in W. P. No. 4591 of 1981 and the same was dismissed on 10-3-1983. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner in W. A. No. was allowed on24-6-1987. The Special leave Petition filed by the management was also dismissed. Therefore, finally, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 2-8-1988. While so, he was transfered to Ananthapur Unit on 9-6-1989. It is the case of the petitioner that the post in which he was working at Adoni i. e. Shift Incharge and he was not posted in the same designation and post in Ananthapur and the Management was trying to victimise him for his Trade Union activities. A charge sheet dated 15-9-1990 was issued to the petitioner alleging the misconductnamely leaving the headquarters without prior permission and absence without leave. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and finally he was discharged from service on 15-4-1991 though the petitioner filed appeals to the competent authority, there was no orders in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition assailing the orders of his discharge.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jayaprakash Rao submits that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are wholly biased and a false charge was framed against him as he succeeded in earlier litigation and only with a view to take revenge against the petitioner, the management has foisted a false case against him and finally discharged him from service. It is also his grievence that the posting and transfer to Anantapur not as Shift incharge is also yet another indication of victimisation and unfair labour practise. I am afraid, I can not got into these aspects. Since, these are pure questions of fact and they cannot be adjudicated by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) SECONDLY, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are wholly perverse and therefore, the findings have to be set aside.

( 5 ) THE learned senior counsel for the respondents submit that a regular charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted, the petitioner was given every opportunity to defend his case. Considering the material on record, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges. Therefore, he submits that there is neither infraction of standing orders nor principles of natural justice. Hence, the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer is quite valid and legal. I have gone through the findings the Kriqulry office and find that the eloberate enquiry has been conducted by the Enquiry Officer. I find that there is no infirmity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

( 6 ) IT is lastly urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment is too harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. He submits that under Section 11-A of the industrial Disputes Act, this court can mould the relief and can set aside the orders of punishment and grant appropriate reliefs under Article 226 of the constitution of India. This proposition has been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the Respondents Sri E. Manonar. He submits that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 226 is very limited and that it cannot sit over the actions of the management as if an appellate authority. Therefore, he subm