ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 2461 of 1987 (Cemant Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. v. M.M . Blan and two Ors.). By these two petitions, the employer as well as the employee have challenged the order of the Industrial Court passed in appeal No. 892/MP1R/1983. 2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that M.M. Balan was in the employment of the Cement Corporation of India with effect from 22nd August. 1965 as ST. Driver. He was served with a charge-sheet for the alleged incident dated October 11, 1979. The employee denied the charges. A domestic enquiry was held. After conclusion of the said enquiry the misconduct alleged against the employee that he : assaulted a Superior Officer Mr. Rao was found proved. Therefore, his services were terminated vide order dated January 30, 1990. Aggrieved by the said order of termination, the employee filed an application under section 31 (3) read with Section 61 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short the 'Act') before the Labour Court. The Labour Court declared the inquiry as illegal and improper, but, on evidence adduced on merits of misconduct, the misconduct was found proved and, therefore, maintained the order of termination. Aggrieved of the order of Labour Court the employee preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court after appreciating the evidence of Harimohan, who saw the occurrence, recorded a finding that the employee did not assault his superior office but it was at the most a scuffle between the two because the eye-witness-Harimohan has stated that he saw the employee putting his one hand on the shoulder of Mr. Rao and the other hand in a raised condition, thereafter, both stood separately. Therefore, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the misconduct of assault alleged against the employee is not proved. Rao and the other hand in a raised condition, thereafter, both stood separately. Therefore, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the misconduct of assault alleged against the employee is not proved. The Industrial Court further observed that even if the act of the employee amounts to a misconduct, the penalty of dismissal was too harsh, as the employee has rendered 16 years of unblemished service, therefore, taking into consideration the past service record and placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ramakant Mishra v. State of U.P. (1982 II LLJ 472), exercised its powers under Section 107-A of the Act and interfered in the punishment by ordering reinstatement of the employee and forfeiting the back wages as a measure of punishment. Aggrieved of this order, Employee and Employer, both have filed their separate petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Smt. Indira Nair counsel for the petitioner-employee and Shri L.P. Bhargava Senior Advocate with Shri V.S. Shroti counsel for the petitioner-employer, heard. 4. After hearing the counsel I am of the opinion that considering the facts and circumstances which were found proved by the Industrial Court on record, the Industrial Court in exercise of the powers under section 107-A of the Act, interfered in the punishment, as charge of assault on the evidence adduced by the employer was not found proved. The finding arrived at by the Industrial Court is neither manifestly illegal nor perverse. The Industrial Court has acted within its jurisdiction, therefore, no interference can be made in the order in exercise of supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. See AIR 1984 SC 38 (Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd, Mustaqim and Ors.). 5. Accordingly, both the petitions shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner.