S.K. Homchaudhuri, J. — In this writ petition, petitioner on behalf of 22 dismissed workmen, have impugned the award dated 10.9.80 of the learned Labour ' Court, Assam, Dibrugarh made in Reference No. 40 of 1975. All together 29 workmen were charge sheeted out of 29. 22 of them were charged with commission of gross misconduct of res­orting to illegal strike, willful disobedience of the lawful orders, riotous conduct of assaulting and confining Executives of the com­pany and causing damages to the company property, while seven other were charged with the commission of misconduct of striking work illegally and for willful disobedience of lawful order of the Management. The Management not being satisfied with the replies to charges held separate domestic enquiry against each of the workmen and after conclusion of the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer have given findings holding that charges against each of the workmen were established by evidence adduced against them in the domestic enquiry. The Management agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and on consideration of other materials on record dismissed all the 29 workmen by separate dismissal orders. as per the provision of the Standing Orders. On the dismissal of the 29 workmen, industrial dispute was raised and ultimately, Government of Assam, Department of Labour by Notification No. GLR.509/75/12 dated 15.10.75, referred the dispute to the learned Labour Court, Assam, Dibrugarh for adjudication. The matters in dispute specified in the Schedule to the said Notification were: 1. Whether the Management of Assam Railways and Trading Co. Ltd., Margherita were justified in terminating the ser-ices of Sarvashree (1) Arun Chandra Bora, (2) Jiban Dey (3) Parimal Das, (4) Anil Chandra Borgahain, (5) Rashendra Dutta, (6) Jogesh Debnath, (7) Senu Goala, (8)Gajendra Lal Das, (9) Rashmohan Debnath, (10) Janardan Pandey, (11) Lai Mohammad, (12) Krishna Dey, (13) Prafulla De­bnath, (14) Som Bahadur Sonar, (15) Prafulla Biswas, (16) Megha Sena Singh, (17) Mongru Ahir, (18) Debendra Chandra Roy, (19) Hiranmoy Choudhury, (20) N. K. Roy, (21) J.C. Roy, (22) Madhusudhan Chakraborty, (23) Amulya Gope, (24) Hiren Mech, (25) Nityanada Banerjee, (26) Dulal Choudhury, (27) Gopal Chandra Roy, (28) Debiram Gogoi, (29) Narayan Das. 2. If not, are the workmen entitled to reinstatement or any other relief in lieu thereof ? After the reference was made, Reference Case No. 40 of 1975 was registered in the Court of the learned Labour Court. 2. If not, are the workmen entitled to reinstatement or any other relief in lieu thereof ? After the reference was made, Reference Case No. 40 of 1975 was registered in the Court of the learned Labour Court. After receipt of notice of the Reference, written statements were filed on behalf of the Management as well as on behalf of the workmen. Learned Labour Court after going through the enquiry proceedings and charge sheets and other materials on record by the impugned award held that the domestic enquiry held by the Management was fair and proper and in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the finding of the Enquiry Officer was not perverse but based on evidence on record adduced before him. Learned Labour Court however found that charges against seven workmen namely, (1) Prafulla Biswas, (2) Magha Sena Singh, (3) Mongru Ahir, (4) Debendra Chandra Roy, (5) Hiranmoy Choudhury, (6) N.K. Roy, (7) J. C. Roy were only striking the work and wilful disobedience, and in the exercise of power under section HA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19^7 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), modified the punishment of dismissal passed against the aforesaid seven workmen to reinstatement in service without back wages. The learned Labour Court, however, found that the Management was fully justified in awarding punishment of dismissal from service against the other 22 workmen in view of charges of riotous conduct of assaulting and confining the Company Executives and damaging company properties, apart from charges of striking work and disobedience to lawful order, were established against them. We have heard Mr.B.C.Das, learned counsel for the petitioners (workmen) and Mr.D.N.Baruah, learned counsel for the Management (respondent). Mr. Das has submitted that the learned Labour Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction duly vested in it by law in not taking into consideration the materials on record to satisfy itself as to whether the guilt of riotous conduct etc against 22 workmen were established or not, inasmuch as the learned Labour Court was on duty bound under the provision of section HA of the Act to consider the materials on record to satisfy itself as to whether the misconduct of riotous behaviour and causing damage to property were established against the 22 workmen or not. Learned counsel has submitted that the learned Labour Court without considering the evidence on record arbitrarily held that the Management was justified in dismissing those 22 workmen because they were charge sheeted with the commission of gross misconduct of riotous behaviour and causing damage to properties. In support of the contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of F.T.R. Co. vs. The Management, ( AIR 1973 SC 1227 ), wherein the Apex Court held that the legislature by enacting section 1!A for the first time empowered the Labour Court or Tribunal to satisfy itself as to whether misconduct with which the workman has been charged with has been proved or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that an illegal strike may be justified and for the striking work by the workmen for justified reason although illegal, the punishment of dismissal from service was shockingly disproportionate. In support of the contention, learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Rajendar Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, ( AIR 1984 SC 1805 ). Mr. D.N. Baruah, learned counsel for the Management on the other hand submits that the learned Labour Court after taking into consideration the entire materials and evidence on record has come to finding that the evidence on record fully establishes the charges against the workmen and the findings of the Enquiry Officer was not perverse but supported by evidence on record. He has drawn our attention to para 7 of the award of the learned Labour Court. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the learned Labour Court in exercises of the power under section 11 A of the Act had modified the punishment of dismissal in respect of seven workmen against whom the charge of resorting to illegal strike and disobedience of lawful order of the Management was established, to reinstatement without back wages, but the other 22 workmen who were dismissed from service, their punishment was upheld not only for resorting to illegal strike but also committing gross misconduct of riotous conduct of assaulting, confining the Company Executives and causing damage to company properties. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of the respondents. We have perused the impugned award and other materials on record. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of the respondents. We have perused the impugned award and other materials on record. Although in the impugned award learned Labour Court has not discussed the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry in details to arrive at the finding as to whether the guilt of the workmen were established or not, however, from the impugned award it is clear that the learned Labour Court has perused the record of the domestic enquiry proceedings and on careful perusal of the entire enquiry proceedings held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer that charges against the workmen were established were supported by evidences on record and the finding of the enquiry Officer was not perverse. As such, it cannot be held that the learned Labour Court in not discussing the evidences adduced in the domestic enquiry in details, has committed errors of law apparent on the face of the records in holding that the Management was justified in dismissing the 22 workmen. Mr. B. C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the dismissal of the workmen in any view of the matter is disproportionate to the offence commuted by them. As such if reinstatement is not possible at this stage, the dismissed workmen who are deprived of their means of livelihood having suffered immensely, they are entitled to some relief in kind, even by way of ex gratia payment. No doubt, dismissal of the workmen has caused great sufferings not only to him but to their dependants also' and that factor should always weigh with the Labour Court while exercising power under section 11A of the Act, but maintenance of harmony and peace and discipline in the industry is also equally important which cannot be overlooked. Riotous conduct of confining/assaulting Manager or other Company Executives and damaging the company properties are such gross misconduct which are very much subversive of the discipline of the industry. Over emphasis on the sufferings of the dismissed workmen guilty of commission of such gross misconduct or misplaced sympathy of the Court on such workmen is likely to encourage and perpetuate indiscipline in the industry which invariably would affect the morale of the management badly. Over emphasis on the sufferings of the dismissed workmen guilty of commission of such gross misconduct or misplaced sympathy of the Court on such workmen is likely to encourage and perpetuate indiscipline in the industry which invariably would affect the morale of the management badly. Indiscipline and consequent mismanagement of the industry may turn the industry into a sick one and in that event not only the Management and the national economy would suffer but also the workmen as a class employed in the industry would suffer heavily. Ordinarily, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court would not peruse the evidences recorded in the domestic enquiry held by the Management which has been found to be proper and valid by the Labour Court. However, in the instant case, 20 years have passed since the workmen were dismissed and the grievance made in the petition is that the learned Labour Court has not shifted the evidences adduced in the domestic enquiry properly to satisfy itself as to whether the guilt of riotous conduct etc were established against the 22 workmen. Under the circumstances, to satisfy ourselves as to whether the charge of riotous conduct of confining/assaulting the Company Executives and damaging company properties against the 22 workmen were established in the domestic enquiry, or not, we have perused the entire domestic enquiry proceedings proved and exhibited in the Reference. On perusal, we find that evidence adduced by the Management in the domestic enquiry has established the charges of commission of misconduct of riotous conduct of confining/assaul­ting the Company Executives and causing damage to company properties against the 22 workmen whose dismissal from service has been held to be justified by the learned Labour Court. We are satisfied that no injustice has been caused to the workmen because of the fact that learned Labour Court has not discussed the evidence on records in details. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is therefore, dismissed. We make on order as to costs.