JUDGMENT : Udai Pratap Singh, J. - By this writ application the petitioner has challenged the validity of the award dated 17.8.78, passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in reference no. 14/76 (annexure-6) whereby the discharge of the workman has been held to be proper and justified but he has been awarded compensation under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The Tata Robins Fraser Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and has got a factory at Jamshedpur for the purpose of carrying on its" business of material handling and processing It is in the group of Engineering Industries. In its factory large number of workmen are employed in various categories. P. H. N. Deo was employed as a machine man in the factory. On 5th May 1975, he misbehaved with his Supervisor and slapped him. The company issued a charge sheet and the explanation submitted by him was not found to be satisfactory. A proper domestic enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of the charges leveled against him. A report to that effect was submitted to the Management. By its ORDER :dated 14.6.75, after considering the report and the proceedings of the enquiry, the Management discharged respondent no. 2 from the service w. e. f. 16.6.76. 3. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State of Bihar to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur for its adjudication. In pursuance of the notice served on the parties, written statement was filed and the parties were heard on a preliminary point regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry. By its ORDER :dated 12.8.77, the domestic enquiry was held to be proper, fair and in accordance with rules of natural justice. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court gave its award on 17th August 1978 and arrived at the following conclusions: (a) that the domestic enquiry held by the Management was proper, fair and legal; (b) the plea of discrimination raised by the workman, was unsustainable. (c) the offence was serious when the workman slapped his Supervisor during the working hours. The Management could have been justified even to have dismissed him but the Management chose to discharge him, which is a lessor punishment; and (d) the ORDER :of discharge passed by the Management was fully justified, legal and valid. 4. (c) the offence was serious when the workman slapped his Supervisor during the working hours. The Management could have been justified even to have dismissed him but the Management chose to discharge him, which is a lessor punishment; and (d) the ORDER :of discharge passed by the Management was fully justified, legal and valid. 4. Even after recording the aforesaid findings, against the workman, the tribunal stated that the ends of justice will be met ful1y if the workman is compensated and, therefore, he awarded compensation from 16.6.65 up to the date of award in exercise of the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is this finding of allowing compensation which has been challenged by the Management in this writ application. 5. After coming to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry held by the management was fair, legal and valid and in accordance with the rules of natural justice, the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding the compensation under Section 11 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 11 - A of the Act reads as for lows : 'Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the ORDER :of discharge 01' dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the ORDER :of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other reliefs to the workman including the award of any lessor punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require : Provided, that, in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter." 6. In absence of a finding that the dismissal or discharge is not justified, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to award compensation to the workman. 7. In absence of a finding that the dismissal or discharge is not justified, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to award compensation to the workman. 7. Section 11-A of the Act enables interference of the Labour Court only if the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the dismissal or discharge are not justified, In other words to grant relief under Section 11-A there must be a finding that the discharge or dismissal is not justified. Unless the Labour Court gives such a finding, it has absolutely no power to grant any other relief contemplated under Section 11-A of the Act such as awarding lessor punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal, as the circumstances of the case may require, or any other relief. Thus the finding regarding the non-justification of discharge or dismissal is a condition precedent for granting the other reliefs contemplated under Section 11-A. 8. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, there is a clear finding by the Labour Court that the misconduct is proved and that the punishment of discharge from the service for such misconduct is also justified. This finding of the Labour Court is not disputed by the workman. It is the Management who had filed the writ petition against the grant of compensation to the workman. From the facts of the case it is clear that the Labour Court, in absence of any finding to the effect that the discharge or dismissal was not justified had, no power to award compensation as it has done in this case. The ORDER :is, therefore, clearly in violation of Section 11-A of the Act. 9. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with the result that the compensation awarded by the Labour Court is quashed. There will be no ORDER :as to costs.