The central legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of interference with the quantum of punishment is limited, and such interference can only occur when the punishment is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved.

( 1 ) BY way of the present petition, the DTC seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside the judgment and order dated 25th September, 1991 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court whereunder it was held that though the enquiry conducted by the DTC was fair and proper, however the punishment imposed by it on the respondent workman was reduced from termination of service, to that of warning only and the DTC was accordingly directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and full back wages.

( 2 ) FACTS of the case are that the respondent workman got employed with the dtc in May 1973 and was brought on monthly rate of pay basis in November, 1974. On 3rd June, 1988, while the respondent workman was performing his duty on Bus no. 1218, Route No. 445, his bus was checked by the checking officials and it was found that the respondent workman was going to Alaknanda via DDA Kalkaji, whereas as per the duty allotted to him, he was supposed to go via Tara apartment. It is the case of the DTC that on being asked for an explanation, the respondent workman failed to show sufficient reason for the said irregularity in diverting from the charted route and instead, the respondent workman misbehaved with the checking officials and accordingly he was challaned. Thereafter a charge sheet was issued to the respondent on 30th June, 1988 for the irregularity/misconduct committed by him, to which the respondent workman filed his reply. The reply not being found satisfactory, the case was entrusted to the enquiry Officer for conducting a detailed enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, in his findings held that the charges as leveled against the respondent workman stood proved, and on the basis of the said findings and the past records and performance of the respondent workman, the respondent driver was removed from services of the DTC with effect from 25th January, 1989.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said removal order, the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication in the following terms of reference:

"whether the removal from service of Shri Swaminath Prasad is illegal, and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect. "

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Labour court:

". Whether the enquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper". To what relief, if any, is the workman entitled in terms of the reference""

( 5 ) VIDE its award dated 25th September, 1991, while deciding the first issue in favour of the DTC on the ground that the propriety and legality of the enquiry was not disputed by the respondent workman, the second issue was decided in favour of the respondent workman, thereby holding that the punishment of termination of service imposed by the DTC could not be sustained. Accordingly, the Labour Court reduced the punishment imposed on the respondent workman from "termination" to that of "warning" only. The Labour Court further directed that the respondent workman be taken back in service with continuity and full back wages. The said award has been impugned by filing the present petition.

( 6 ) IT is pertinent to mention at the very outset that the respondent workman has retired during the pendency of the present petition, on 30th November, 2003 and that while 50% of his basic pay was paid to the respondent workman vide order dated 13th September, 1995, the balance 50% was paid to him at the time of his retirement,. e. on 30th November, 2003.

( 7 ) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel for the DTC submitted that the impugned award is bad in so far as the reduction in quantum of punishment is concerned. It was stated that the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondent workman was commensurate with the irregularity/misconduct committed by him, and that the punishment of termination from services