A.S. BOPANNA, J.

1. The appellant management is before this court in this writ appeal assailing the order dated 17.12.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 4343/2013.

2. The respondent herein, who was working in the appellant tea estate, was proceeded against for misconduct alleged against him. In response to the charge-sheet dated 26.09.2008, reply was furnished and, on an enquiry being held, the respondent being found guilty of the charges, was terminated from the services of the appellant management on 03.07.2010.

3. The respondent herein, claiming to be aggrieved by the same, had raised a dispute, which came to be referred to the Labour court, Assam, Dibrugarh, in Reference Case No. 3/2011. The validity or otherwise of the domestic enquiry held against the respondent was considered as the preliminary issue and, on finding the same to be fair and proper, the Labour court proceeded further to consider as to whether there was any perversity in the finding of the enquiry officer and the action taken by the management. The Labour court, through the award dated 18.09.2012, was of the opinion that the appellant management was justified in its action and had, accordingly, rejected the Reference without interfering with the order of punishment. The respondent herein, claiming to be aggrieved by the award dated 18.09.2012, passed by the Labour court, instituted a writ proceeding in WP(C) 4343/2013. The learned Single Judge, having considered the rival contentions, was of the opinion that the findings of the award passed by the Labour court, in so far as holding the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper as also the finding of the enquiry officer not admitting of any perversity were concerned, were justified. However, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the Labour court had not, thereafter, proceeded further to exercise its discretion as available under Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and, in that light, the learned Single Judge, having exercised such discretion, was of the opinion that the punishment of termination from service, as imposed, was disproportionate and, accordingly, set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the respondent with all benefits. It is in that light the appellant management, claiming to be aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 17.12.2015, is before this court in this appeal.

4. In the above background, we have heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as also Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent. We have also perused the appeal papers.

5. The contention put forth on behalf of the appellant, essentially, is that in a circumstance where the validity of the domestic enquiry is held to be fair and proper and there is no perversity in the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and, to that effect, when a consideration is made by the Labour court as well as by the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge would not be justified in invoking discretion available under Section 11A of the Act. Hence, it is contended that in such circumstance, the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in setting aside the punishment imposed by the management which was based on a charge, which had been proved in the enquiry and such proving of the charge was after complying with the principles of natural justice since the finding is to the effect that the enquiry held was fair and proper. In that light, it is contended that the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has attempted to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is contended that the decision as referred to by the learned Single Judge to arrive at the conclusion is justified. In order to consider the contention, as put forth herein, we have also adverted to the decisions on which the learned counsel for