( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a driver, has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) No. 366 of 1981 whereby his demand and dispute for reinstatement with backwages was rejected.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was dismissed after being chargesheeted for three charges and a regular departmental enquiry into them. The petitioner had also preferred an appeal from the order of dismissal dated 16. 4. 1981, which appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. During the proceedings before the Labour Court, in a full-fledged hearing, the preliminary issue regarding the propriety and legality of the enquiry was adjudicated and the enquiry was upheld. And thereafter, by the impugned award, the Labour Court has also decided the issues regarding sufficiency of evidence in proof of the charges and the propriety of punishment against the petitioner after an elaborate exercise of weighing and appreciating the evidence on record. During the process, the Labour Court has recorded the finding that one of the three charges, involving assault and beating of the superior officer amounting to riotous behaviour, was not proved and the finding of the Enquiry Officer in that regard was held to be perverse. 2. 1 against the backdrop of the above outline of facts, the case of the petitioner was canvassed mainly on the grounds that the award was perverse insofar as the evidence in respect of the other two charges was also insufficient or contradictory; that no act amounting to misconduct was committed; that even assuming the misconducts to have been proved, it was a fit case for judicial intervention in exercise of the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (`the Act for short) and that, in any case, the punishment was shockingly disproportionate.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner, it would be necessary to advert to few necessary details emerging from the record. The charges levelled against the petitioner and held to have been proved even by the Labour Court are: (I) wilful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with other or others of any lawful and reasonable order of his superior; and (II) Causing damage to work in progress or to any property of the Corporation either wilfully or through negligence. These two charges in the form of two clauses of Clause 30 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the respondent were substantiated by the details of the incident that took place on 5. 12. 1980 and 6. 12. 1980. On 5. 12. 1980, the petitioner was alleged to be in charge of vehicle No. GRE 7938 meant for official tour of Pipeline Engineers. When he was asked by the officer to drive the vehicle to a doctor, since the officer was having headache and bodyache, the petitioner refused to drive and, when the other officer sought to drive the vehicle, the petitioner laid himself down in front of the vehicle and abused his superior officer. When the petitioner was, upon his refusal to drive the vehicle, asked to report to his headquarter on the next day, he did not comply and again laid himself down before the vehicle preventing the officers from moving to the site for performing their official duties. Out of these basic and broad facts, there undisputably was sufficient evidence to prove the incident of 5. 12. 1980. It was submitted that the alleged incident of 6. 12. 1980 was not proved. Examining these arguments and going through the elaborate discussion of the evidence in the impugned award as also the enquiry report, it was found that more than one witness had deposed in support of the allegation and the depositions had withstood the cross-examination. The only discrepancy in the evidence regarding the incident of 5. 12. 1980 was that the officers had intended to go to a movie and not to the doctor as alleged. As