( 1 ) THE petitioner who is a workman of the respondent S. T. Corporation was dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct of absenting from duty for two days and negligence. The Labour Court in reference (LCR) Application No. 38) of 1981 held that the punishment was unreasonable and excessive therefore required interference under sec. 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court held that the workman should be reinstated in continuity of service with 50% back wages. The Labour Court also held that in view of the fact that he has been awarded 50% back wages is sufficient punishment looking to the circumstances of the case. It is against this order that the workman has preferred this petition and submitted that the punishment of refusal of 50% back wages is excessive for the small misconduct alleged against him. On behalf of the respondent Corporation it has been submitted that the Labour Court has in exercise of its discretion refused to award full back wages and granted only 50% backwages on the ground that it would be sufficient punishment for the proved misconduct and hence no interference is called for under Art. 227.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for t