( 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 the respondent Corporation has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaquim and Others AIR 1984 SC 38 In para 7 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed as under:the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. Another decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondent Corporation is in the case of jitendra Singh Rathod v. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. and Another AIR 1984 SC 976 and referred more particularly to the following observations made in paras 3 and 4 of that judgment wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal under this provision ar d in a given case on the facts established the Tribunal can vacate the order of dismissal or discharge and give suitable directions It is a well settled principle of law that hen an order of termination of service is found to be bad and reinstatement is directed the wronged workman is originally entitled to full back wages unless for any particular reason the whole or a part of it is asked to be withheld. The Tribunal while directing reinstatement and keeping the delinquency in view could withhold payment of a part or the whole of the back wages. In our opinion the High Court was right in taking the view that when payment of back wages to the extent of half in the facts of the cases was therefore by way of penalty referable to proved misconduct and that situation could not have been answered by the High Court by saying that the relief of reinstatement was being granted on terms of withholding of half of the back wages and therefore did not constitute penalty. Under sec. 11a of the Act advisedly wide discretion has been vested in the Tribunal in the matter of awarding relief according to the circumstances of the case. The High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution does not enjoy such power though as a superior court it is vested with the right of superintendence. The High Court is indisputably entitled to scrutinies the orders of the subordinate Tribunals within the well accepted limitations. . . It was also submitted that having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court the High Court i. e. exercise of the jurisdiction of superintendence should remand the matter for quick disposal. In para 5 of the very judgment the Supreme Court has clarified that it was not to be understood to have denied the power of the High Court in every type of cases. In the present case the dismissal is of the year 1980. After six years remanding the matter for such a question would neither be just nor proper.

( 3 ) IN the facts