Virender Singh, J.

1. The instant letters patent appeal has been filed by a Union known as National Colliery Congress on behalf of one workman namely Lalchand Gope (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Workman’), a Night Guard posted in Industry Colliery against whom a criminal case under Sections 379/411 I.P.C. was registered in February, 1994 on the allegation that he was caught stealing one piece of cable by a personnel of CISF. Simultaneously, departmental proceedings were also initiated against him in which ultimately the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal from service on 2nd of November, 1994. The workman got acquittal in a criminal case vide judgment dated 25th of February, 1999 of Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, copy thereof is available on the memo of appeal as Annexure-1. Thereafter, the Union, on his behalf, raised an industrial dispute (Reference No.280 of 2000) in which Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.I, Dhanbad, considering the gravity of misconduct committed by the workman and keeping in view the proportionality of the punishment to be awarded to him, passed an award in the following terms :-

“The action of the management of Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Lalchand Gope from the services of the company w.e.f. 1/2.11.1994 is not justified. Hence, the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with 60% back wages, but he will not be entitled for further increments and further promotion till the case of joining.”

2. Being aggrieved of the said award, management of Kusunda Area of M/s B.C.C.L. (for short 'employer') knocked at the door of the Writ Court through the medium of W.P.(L) No.6002 of 2009 which stands allowed by the learned Writ Court vide impugned order dated 28th of April, 2015. Aggrieved of the said order of learned Writ Court, the workman has now filed the instant letters patent appeal, which is at admission stage. However, with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, we have taken it on board for its final consideration.

3. Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the workman, at the very outset, submitted that the observation made by the learned Writ Court to the effect that it was not open to Tribunal to substitute its own opinion on the quantum of punishment looking at the gravity of the misconduct, is not sustainable in terms of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'I.D. Act'). He submitted that it is the statutory duty of the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act to adjudicate the dispute on merits on the basis of the evidence produced on record and that this Act also empowers the adjudicating authority to examine the aspect of proportionality of punishment to be imposed upon a workman, if the act of misconduct alleged against him is proved. He submitted that even the High Court is also duty bound to exercise the same power while dealing with the award rendered by the Labour Court.

5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar [reported in (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 301] in which their Lordships in para-36 has observed as follows :-

“36. Once the reference is made by the State Government in exercise of its statutory power to the Labour Court for adjudication of the existing industrial dispute on the points of dispute, it is the mandatory statutory duty of the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act to adjudicate the dispute on merits on the basis of evidence produced on record. Section 11-A was inserted in the Act by Parliament by Amendment Act 45 of 1971 (w.e.f. 15-12-1972) with the avowed object to examine the important aspect of proportionality of punishment imposed upon a workman if, the acts of misconduct alleged against the workman are proved. The “doctrine of proportionality” has been elaborately discussed by this Cou