JUDGMENT :

A.P. Thaker, J.

1. This petition is filed by Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by Labour Court, Bhavnagar, in Reference (IT) No.18 of 1998 dated 31.3.2008, whereby the penalty of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect has been set aside and the petitioner has been directed to release requisite amount including the amount for the period of suspension.

2. It is vehemently submitted that the Labour Court has committed serious error of facts and law in allowing the petition of the workman as he was serving as Class-IV, Sepoy, and it was his duty to see that area of mutton market is kept clean. It is the main contention of the Corporation that workman was irregular in his attendance and several notices were issued against him and opportunity of being heard was given to him, however, he did not reply to any of the notices and remained absent. It is also contended that, after due departmental inquiry, punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect has been imposed by the Corporation, which is in consonance with legal provisions and proper in the facts of the case. It is also submitted that there is callous approach of the workman and he was remaining absent in his duty. It is also alleged that even when the Commissioner has visited the sight, the workman was found absent. It is also submitted that during the course of departmental inquiry necessary opportunity was given to the workman and after perusing the material, inquiry officer has ultimately opined that continuous absence has been proved against the workman. Therefore, necessary order of punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect was passed. According to the petitioner, the Labour Court has committed serious error of facts and law in allowing reference as it is the discretion of the administrative authority to impose penalty upon its employee after following due process of law. It is also submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Corporation regarding stoppage of two increments with permanent effect.

3. Heard Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.A.Y.Oza, learned advocate for the workman at length through video conferencing.

4. Main contention of Mr.Munshaw is that the notices were issued to the workman for not attending his work and yet no improvement was shown by the workman. He has also submitted that no explanation was given by the workman to various notices and, therefore, the Corporation has initiated departmental inquiry against him and, ultimately, after giving an opportunity of being heard, punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect was imposed. According to Mr.Munshaw, punishment is not disproportionate to the charge and the Labour Court has over-reached in exercising the power in favour of the workman. According to him, when the inquiry was proper, there was no need to interfere by the Labour Court even while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Mr.Munshaw has relied upon the decision in the case of West Bokaro Colliery (Tisco Ltd.) v. Ram Pravesh Singh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 729 in support of his submission that under Section 11A of the Act, Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal cannot act as if it were an appellate body. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that when two views are possible on evidence, the Labour Court should be very slow in interfering with the finding arrived at in the domestic inquiry and the standard of proof in domestic inquiry is preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. It is also observed by the Supreme Court that the Tribunal or the Labour Court may not interfere with the findings of domestic inquiry on the ground that there was independent evidence, apart from management witnesses. In the said decision, in paragraph 15, the Supreme Court has referred to paragraph 9 its ea