JUDGEMENT - G.R. MAJITHIA, J. :---This judgment disposes of Writ Petitions Nos. 1336 of 1995, 1337 of 1995, 1338 of 1995, 1339 of 1995, 1340 of 1995, 1341 of 1995, 1342 of 1995, 1343 of 1995, 1344 of 1995, 1345 of 1995, 1346 of 1995, 1347 of 1995 and Appeal No. 564 of 1994 in Writ Petition No. 1607 of 1994. In the writ petitions, challenge has been made to the order of the Industrial Court dated April 29, 1994 passed in appeals filed under section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Appeal No. 564 of 1994 is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated July 25, 1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 1607 of 1994. In Writ Petition No. 1607 of 1994, 11 workmen had challenged the order of the Industrial Court denying them 50% backwages. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the order is under challenge in the appeal. The appeal has been admitted for hearing. 2. The factual matrix is as under: The petitioner, Sadhana Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., suspended from service one Dinanath Harihar. The workers took up the cause of the suspended employee and impressed the petitioner to withdraw the suspension order. The suspension order was not withdrawn. The workers went on strike without issuing notice or intimation to the petitioner, with effect from 3.30 p.m. on November 23, 1984. The strike continued till November 26, 1984. The petitioner moved the Labour Court and vide its order dated August 26, 1985, it declared the strike as illegal. The petitioner issued charge-sheets to 12 workmen. They were charged for actively participating, inciting and instigating the workers to an illegal strike. The Enquiry Officer found that the misconduct alleged against the workmen stood proved. One of the workmen, namely Venkat Harsaiya tendered unqualified apology. He was not discharged from service. In view of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner discharged 12 workmen from service. The workmen sent approach letter to the company. Thereafter they filed applications under sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for brevity "the Act"). The Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. The Labour Court allowed the petitioner to lead evidence in support of the charge levelled against these workmen. The workmen sent approach letter to the company. Thereafter they filed applications under sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for brevity "the Act"). The Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. The Labour Court allowed the petitioner to lead evidence in support of the charge levelled against these workmen. After recording evidence, the Labour Court, by order dated December 29, 1988, allowed the applications filed by the 12 workmen and ordered their reinstatement in service with full backwages. The petitioner challenged the order of the Labour Court in appeal before the Industrial Court. The appeals were partly allowed and the workers were ordered to be reinstated and the punishment of their losing wages at the last drawn rate for a period of six months was imposed on them. 3. The petitioner challenged that Industrial Court's common order in this Court in Writ Petition No, 2366 of 1989. The learned Single Judge remanded the case to the Industrial Court, vide order dated July 23, 1993, to decide the question of punishment afresh in the light of Standing Order No. 21. In the light of the directions issued by this Court, the Industrial Court re-heard the appeals, heard the petitioner and the workmen and directed reinstatement of the workmen with continuity in service with 50% backwages, within one month from the date of the order. The Industrial Court examined every aspect of the matter. It will be relevant to reproduce the following conclusions of the Industrial Court.: "Thus, after going through all these citations referred to above, and it is clear that in the above circumstances, punishment refusing half wages was awarded to the workers, who have participated in the illegal strike. The Standing Order did not disclose which punishment should be awarded to which misconduct, therefore, it is fact and circumstances of the case and the past record which will decide the factor of punishment. Thus in the present case, the workers have admittedly participated in the strike, which was declared illegal, but no another misconduct was proved against them, and further there were total 600 persons, who were on strike, but no action was taken against them. Shri Narayan who has also participated in the illegal strike, was pardoned, and no punishment was awarded to him, and he was reinstated. Shri Narayan who has also participated in the illegal strike, was pardoned, and no punishment was awarded to him, and he was reinstated. Therefore, it seems to be discrimination on the part of appellant mill. There was no reason for the mill to excuse Mr. Narasayya, and award punishment to other persons. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is necessary to take lenient view and, to grant lesser punishment to the workmen instead of granting them punishment of discharging. In view of the citations referred to above, equitable and legal relief will be to refuse half back wages to the workmen, and refusal of half back wages will be perfect punishment in view of the S.O. S.O. provides for warning or suspension but, mere giving warning or suspending workers, it will not be proper punishment, hence refusal of half back wages will be proper punishment. It has been argued by the counsel for the company, that the Mill is under the B.I.F.R. Scheme, therefore, reinstatement should not be granted, but in my opinion, though the Mill is under the B.I.F.R. it does not mean that the relief of reinstatement should not be granted to the workers. Refusal of half back wages will certainly coerce the economical burden of the Mill. Hence, though the mill is under the B.I.F.R. Scheme, it will not affect in any way, and it should be noted that this point was not raised before my predecessor, who has passed the order earlier, and the High Court has also not given any direction to that effect that the condition of the Appellant Mill being under B.I.F.R. Scheme should be taken into consideration." These observations indicate that the Industrial Court examined every aspect of the matter including Standing Order No. 21 and held that the punishment inflicted by the management was grossly shocking and disproportionate to the charge levelled against the workmen. 4. The Industrial Court also took into consideration the fact that about 600 workers participated in the strike but no action was taken against them. Only 12 workmen were picked up and charges were framed against them. The Industrial Court also noted that one Narasayya who, like the other 12 workmen who are respondents in the bunch of these writ petitions, had also participated in the strike but he was given pardon and reinstated in service. Only 12 workmen were picked up and charges were framed against them. The Industrial Court also noted that one Narasayya who, like the other 12 workmen who are respondents in the bunch of these writ petitions, had also participated in the strike but he was given pardon and reinstated in service. The Industrial Court, on these premises, held that the petitioner acted arbitrarily in the matter of awarding punishment. Employees similarly situated were not treated alike in the matter of quantum of punishment. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner raised two-fold submissions, namely that a distinction ought to be drawn between participation in the strike and inciting others to participate in the strike. The persons who incited others deserved to be dealt with severely than the persons who were only participating in the strike. The distinction sought to be drawn is only illusory. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that 600 workmen participated in the illegal strike but only 12 people were picked up for framing the charge of misconduct against them and that the punishment awarded was shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled. The conclusions arrived at and reproduced supra do not suffer from any infirmity. In fact, the petitioner has treated the employees in the matter of punishment arbitrarily. One of the workmen who was similarly situated and had participated in the illegal strike was granted pardon and reinstated. There is no distinguishing feature between that workmen and the workmen who are respondents in this bunch of writ petitions. No reason was advanced before the Industrial Court as to why the petitioner had accepted the apology of that workman although he had participated in the strike and why not similar treatment was meted out to the respondent-workmen in these writ petitions. The action of the petitioner in treating the employees in the matter of punishment arbitrarily amounts to victimization. 6. Appeal No. 564 of 1994 is filed by the 11 workmen against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing their Writ Petition No. 1607 of 1994 in limine. We do not find that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from any infirmity. The Industrial Court, for sound reasons, thought that denial of 50% backwages to the workmen will be sufficient punishment on the proved facts and circumstances of the case. We do not find that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from any infirmity. The Industrial Court, for sound reasons, thought that denial of 50% backwages to the workmen will be sufficient punishment on the proved facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion exercised by the Industrial Court was not interfered with by the learned Single Judge and we hardly find any ground to interfere with the same in appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellants could not persuade us to come to the conclusion that the decision arrived at by the Industrial Court was perverse or that it suffers from any infirmity. 7. For the reasons stated above, we pass the following order :--- (i) The writ petition fail and are dismissed. Rule in each petition is discharged. The interim stay granted by this Court on August 14, 1995 is vacated. However, the Prothonotary and Senior Master will encash the Bank guarantee forthwith. The amount so realised along with the amount of Rs. 5 lacs together with interest accrued thereon will be apportioned amongst the workmen and deposited in fixed deposits in the name of each workman for a period of 3 years in any scheduled Bank. The workmen will encash the fixed deposits after 3 years. During this period, if any of the workmen desires, he or they can withdraw the annual interest accrued on the fixed deposit. An application in this behalf will be moved to the Prothonotary and Senior Master who will get the interest amount paid to him or them. No order as to costs. (ii) Appeal No. 564 of 1994 is dismissed. No order as to costs. (iii) The petitioner will implement the order of the Industrial Court as directed. (iv) Oral prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for staying the operation of this order is declined. Certified copy expedited. Petition dismissed.