( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Brahmbhatt appears for the respondent and waives service of Rule. With the consent of the learned Advocates of parties, rule is heard today.

( 2 ) THE grievance made by the petitioner-Corporation in this petition under art. 227 is that the Industrial Tribunal had patently erred in law and had also committed error of jurisdiction in refering with the punishment imposed departmentally against the petitioner by way of stoppage of three yearly increments with future effect and by substituting the punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect. Such type of jurisdiction could not have been exercised under Sec. 11a of (he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the act for short) which on its express language would not apply to such a case.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, a few relevant facts may be noted. The respondent was working at the relevant time as an octroi clerk. The allegation against him was that he had allowed a truck to pass without collecting octroi. On account of this incident, three charges were levelled against him. In the departmental inquiry, it was found that out of three charges, the first charge was m