JUDGMENT : 1. This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an Award of the Labour Court, Kolhapur, dated September 24, 1986, rendered in Reference (IDA) No. 19 of 1982 made u/s 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The First Respondent is a Co-operative Milk Society engaged in collecting, processing and distributing milk. The petitioner was working in its employment as a Senior Laboratory Assistant and his last drawn salary was Rs. 228.80 per month. On July 15, 1980 the petitioner was on work in the shift from 10-00 to 18.00 hours. While the work or processing of the milk supplied by Nilewadi Society was going on at about 12.00 hours, the petitioner was found taking away milk in steel container by the Departmental Supervisor Arvind Dattatraya Babar. Arvind Dattatraya Babar admonished the petitioner against taking away the milk, to which the petitioner insolently replied that he was taking away the milk for drinking and that the milk belonged to the First Respondent and was not the property of Babar's father. When Babar said that he would have to make a report against him, the petitioner instantly replied that nothing had come about from the reports made so far and that he could do what he liked in the matter. After 18.00 hours, when Babar was going home in the vehicle of the First Respondent-Society, at a distance of about one furlong from the main gate his vehicle was stopped near Chopade's Hotel by the petitioner and six other workmen. After stopping the car, Babar was physically dragged out, subjected to abuses during the course of which the petitioner shouted at him and said, "Why did you stop me when I was taking away the milk for drinking. I was not drinking milk belonging to anybody's father. I was drinking milk of the dairy. What authority have you got to stop me ? Henceforth, if you stop me or any one of us from drinking milk or any one from doing anything else or if you make a report to the higher authority, you will have to face dire consequences." "Thereafter, the petitioner insisted upon Babar to tender an apology to all present with him, which Babar refused to do. Henceforth, if you stop me or any one of us from drinking milk or any one from doing anything else or if you make a report to the higher authority, you will have to face dire consequences." "Thereafter, the petitioner insisted upon Babar to tender an apology to all present with him, which Babar refused to do. At this stage, the petitioner called upon one of his associates to bring a cycle chain to assault Babar. Thereafter, the Supervisor Babar was threatened that if he tried to make a report of the said incident, he would be beaten up. 3. On July 17, 1980, Arvind Dattatraya Babar made a report of the incident and requested that strict action be taken. On July 29, 1980 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet alleging misconduct under Standing Orders 24(k) and (1). A detailed enquiry was held wherein the petitioner was present and was given full opportunity to defend himself. As a result of the enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the misconduct alleged against him and consequently his services were terminated by an order dated July 22, 1981. He demanded reinstatement, which was refused. The consequent industrial dispute was processed under law and referred to the Labour Court. 4. Before the Labour Court, Kolhapur, the parties agreed that the enquiry held against the petitioner was legal and proper. The Labour Court framed the following issues and answered them as under : (Before the Labour Court the petitioner was the second party and the First Respondent was the first party) Consistent with its findings, the Labour Court rejected the demand of the Petitioner. Hence the writ petition. 5. In my view, once the petitioner conceded that the domestic enquiry held against him was legal and proper, the task of the Labour Court was considerably simplified. The Labour Court correctly took the view that the Enquiry Officer had correctly appreciated the evidence before him in holding that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was proved. Despite the fact that the Labour Court was empowered u/s 11A of the Act to interfere, with findings of fact as well as the quantum of punishment, considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court rightly held that the incidents as alleged against the petitioner did take place one within the factory premises, and another near Chopade's Hotel. Despite the fact that the Labour Court was empowered u/s 11A of the Act to interfere, with findings of fact as well as the quantum of punishment, considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court rightly held that the incidents as alleged against the petitioner did take place one within the factory premises, and another near Chopade's Hotel. The incident outside was corroborated by the owner of the Chopade's Hotel who was present there. On the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court considered the deleterious effect on the discipline, if the petitioner was left unpunished, and took the view that the misconduct was of a serious nature which deserved the higher punishment. The Labour Court held that the removal of the petitioner from service was justified and the order passed against him could not be termed as harsh and/or disproportionate. 6. Mr. Dharap, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the Petitioner's service was discontinued only because of his legitimate union activities. It is not possible to accept this contention. It is by now well-settled law that where a misconduct is proved against the workman, the fact that he is an office bearer of the trade union cannot confer upon him immunity from action under law. This was a case where a misconduct of a serious nature was proved against the Petitioner. The fact that he was an active member of the trade union would hardly make any difference to the punishment to be imposed upon him. The relevant factors to be considered for punishment were considered and a view was taken that, considering the serious nature of the misconduct proved against the Petitioner, an order of termination of the service was required to he passed. Despite his best attempts, the Petitioner was not able to persuade the Labour Court to take a contrary view. Though Mr. Dharap submitted that the Petitioner's clean record of eight years has not been considered by the Punishing Authority, I am unable to accept this contention for the reason that no such contention seems to have been urged before the Labour Court as seen from the perusal of the Award. The Labour Court has assessed the overall situation and recorded its conclusion that the punishment was neither disproportionate nor harsh. In these circumstances, I find that the reasoning of the Labour Court cannot be faulted. The Labour Court has assessed the overall situation and recorded its conclusion that the punishment was neither disproportionate nor harsh. In these circumstances, I find that the reasoning of the Labour Court cannot be faulted. There is hardly any ground for interference since there is no lack of jurisdiction, nor perversity in the impugned Award. The petition, therefore, must fail. 7. Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. However, there would be no order as to costs.