JUDGMENT G. C. Bharuka, J. - The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the award dated 30th April, 1986 (Annexure 1) passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal no. 2, Dhanbad (Respondent no. 1) by which the order of dismissal of the petitioner has been held to be justified. 2. At the material time the petitioner was working as a Haulage Khalasi at No.4 Incline of Lohapati Colliery belonging to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (Respondent no.3). He was served with a charge-sheet dated 13.1.1981 containing the following charges : (a) Assaulting alongwith a few accomplices armed with lathies and other lethal weapons on 12.1.82 at about 5.30 P.M. Shri J.N.S. Yadav, Asstt. Colliery Manager, Lohapati Colliery, brutally, while he was returning from duty from incline No. 4 of Lohapati Colliery. As a result, he suffered multiple injuries including some lacerated wounds with bleeding injuries which could have proved fatal. Thereafter Sri Yadav was dragged and left in an Unconscious condition behind a bush in a paddy field taking him as dead. During the course of assault, Sri Yadav was also abused. (b) Habitually leaving his place of duty without taking permission/sanction of his controlling officer. (c) Absence from duty in the third shift of 11.1.82 without sanction. The said charge-sheet was accompanied with a detailed statement of the allegations in support of the charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation but since the explanation was not found satisfactory by the General Manager, an enquiry was conducted through the Deputy Personnel Manager in which evidences, both oral and documentary, were led. The Enquiring Officer submitted his report exonerating the petitioner from the charges but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the opinion of the Enquiring Officer and after reviewing the evidences on record came to the finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges (a) and (c) and accordingly he inflicted the punishment of dismissal against the petitioner. The matter was then referred to the Respondent-Tribunal under section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to resolve the following dispute : "Whether the action of the Management of Lohapatti Colliery in Mohuda Area No. II of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Mohuda, Distt. Dhanbad in dismissing from service Shri Biru Mahato, ex-Haulage Khalasi with effect from 1.10.1984 was justified? Dhanbad in dismissing from service Shri Biru Mahato, ex-Haulage Khalasi with effect from 1.10.1984 was justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" 3. Neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court any grievance has been raised with regard to the fairness or otherwise of the domestic enquiry. Mr. T. K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has sought to assail the impugned award on two grounds, namely, (I) the Tribunal has failed to record any finding on the issue of victimisation and (II) no finding has been recorded on the issue of excessiveness of the punishment which was incumbent upon the Tribunal pursuant to the provisions contained under section 11A of the Act. In support of his first submission Mr. Das has placed reliance on the decision of The Workman of M/s Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management & others, reported in 1973(1) LLJ 278 and in support of his second submission he has referred to two decisions of this Court in the cases of The Workmen of Usha Martin Black Co. Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi & anr. [C.W.J.C. No. 451 of 1987 (R)] and The Workmen of M/s . Mahalakshmi Fabires & Industries Ltd. vs. Presiding Offiicer, Labour Court, Ranchi & anr. [C.W.J.C. No. 686 of 1986 (R)]. 4. On going through the impugned award, I find that the Respondent- Tribunal had taken all possible pains in discussing the entire evidence and material on record which had compelled the management to inflict the exterme penalty of dismissal against the petitioner and after appraisal of all the materials, the Tribunal with regard to charge (a) has held that the defence tried to be established by the concerned workman does not appear to be true and thus found him guilty of the charge. The Tribunal has also held that the evidence on record shows that J.N.S. Yadav who was the superior officer of the petitioner, was assaulted because Sri Yadav wanted the petitioner to do his work properly. Accordingly it was held that the act of the petitioner clearly amounted to misconduct under " section 17 (r) of the Model Standing Orders. In the above background the Tribunal had held that the punishment of dismissal was justified. 5. Accordingly it was held that the act of the petitioner clearly amounted to misconduct under " section 17 (r) of the Model Standing Orders. In the above background the Tribunal had held that the punishment of dismissal was justified. 5. In my opinion, though under section 11A of the Act the Tribunal has been empowered to interfere with the punishment awarded by the management and in the facts of a given case award any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal but that does not necessarily mean that the punishment of dismissal should always be converted into the lesser punishment. Quantum of punishment has to depend on the seriousness of allegations. The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the petitioner had assaulted his superior officer in a planned-manner to deter his officers for compelling him to work properly. There was nothing wrong on his part in up-holding the punishment of dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not justified in his submission that the Respondent Tribunal has not applied himself to the aspect of the quantum of punishment. None of the two unreported decisions are of any avail to the petitioner because in those cases in view of the provisions contained under section 11A of the Act it has been said that the Court can award a lesser punishment. There is no dispute about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in this regard. 6. So far as the question of recording a finding on the issue of victimisation is concerned, as I have stated above, on the facts of the case itself as' discussed by the Tribunal no inference of victimisation can at all be inferred by a prudent person. It was out and out a case of misconduct on the part of the petitioner workman and as such he is not entitled to any relief by this Court. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. No costs.