Honble Tarun Agarwala, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award, passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman with stoppage of two yearly increments for two years and denial of back wages. The brief facts leading to the case is, that on account of an incident which took place on 19.6.1998, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for threatening a superior officer with dire consequences and for using abusive language on a superior officer. The workman, denied the charge and accordingly, the management conducted an oral inquiry, in which, the workman was given full opportunity to defend himself. The inquiry officer submitted his report and found that the charges levelled against the workman stood proved. Based on the aforesaid inquiry report, an explanation was called from the workman. The management considered his explanation and thereafter, vide an order dated 21.10.1998, terminated the services of the petitioner. This led to the initiation of a conciliation proceeding and upon its failure, the Deputy Labour Commissioner referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Before the Labour Court, a preliminary issue was framed with regard to the fairness of the domestic inquiry. The Labour Court, by its order dated 10.4.2002, found that the inquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and that full opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself and that the principles of natural justice was fully complied with. The Labour Court also found that the charges against the workman stood proved and that he tried to threaten a superior officer with dire consequences and had also abused him.

3. The Labour Court, however, in its award, held that the punishment of termination of the workman did not commensurate with the misconduct and that it was harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct. Consequently, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman with stoppage of two yearly increments for two years and denial of back wages. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, has filed the present writ petition.

4. Heard Sri Anil Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the workman.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the powers of the Labour Court to interfere in the order of punishment by the management is limited under Section 6(2-A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and that once the charge of misconduct was affirmed by the Labour Court, it was no longer open for the Labour Court to substitute its own judgment with a lesser punishment. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of punishment was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct and therefore, the Labour Court, being vested with the discretion in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management, validly exercised such discretion under Section 6(2-A) of the Act, which is pari materia with the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

6. The scope of Section 11-A has been explained by the Supreme Court in various judgments. In Mahindra and Mahindra v. N.B. Narawade etc., JT 2005(2) SC 583, the Supreme Court held :

“It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in, the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the labour Court/industrial tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to herein above and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11-A is available only on the exi