JUDGMENT : R.K. Abichandani, J. At the instance of both the sides the petition is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 8th August, 1988 at annexure "B" to the petition holding that the punishment of dismissal which was inflicted on the respondent workman was totally unjustified and that stoppage of one increment for a year would be an adequate punishment and passing an order quashing the punishment of dismissal and directing the respondent's reinstatement with full back wages subject to stoppage of one increment for one year. 2. The respondent employee was charge-sheeted on 10.1.1985 on four grounds. It was alleged that on 22.4.1984 he had used abusive language mentioned in the charge-sheet against his superior officer Mr. Manoj Shah. It was further alleged that on 28.4.1984 the delinquent refused to carry out oral instructions of the officiating accountant and made entered into irrelevant arguments with him. Further allegation was that on 4.1.1985 the delinquent squatted on the ground and started working there with the current deposit ledger and other books and he refused to pay heed to the Branch Manager, who tried to persuade him to occupy his table. It is also alleged that on that day he did not complete the work in connection with cash credit ledger. The last allegation was that on 8.1.1985 the delinquent did not make an entry of a cheque in the current deposit ledger and had to be issued a memorandum which he refused to receive and did not obey the instructions. 3. Initially the respondent was suspended but it appears that after his explanation coupled with a regret and assurance of proper conduct, the suspension order was revoked. The Departmental enquiry however proceeded and the respondent came to be dismissed from service. The appeal filed by him before the Deputy General Manager (P) was dismissed. The respondent employee therefore, challenged his dismissal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 at Bombay. 4. The Tribunal by its award dated 8th August, 1989 holding that the punishment of dismissal was totally unjustified, substituted that punishment by stoppage of one increment for a year directing the reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages. 5. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal had arbitrarily exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal had arbitrarily exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was submitted that the respondent employee was found guilty of a serious misconduct of abusing his superior officer and therefore, punishment of dismissal which was imposed on him cannot be said to be grossly disproportionate to the misconduct. It was further submitted that as regards the other three charges the approach of the Tribunal was speculative and too liberal. It was contended that the Tribunal's decision was perverse and cannot be upheld. It was also argued that there was no basis for observing that the respondent employee was victimised. 6. The respondent employee had not challenged the factum and validity of the enquiry before the Tribunal but has contended that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer especially on the first charge were perverse and could not be sustained. The Tribunal took into consideration the material on record and came to a finding that the charge of the respondent employee hurling the abuse at the Officiating Branch Manager Shri Manoj Shah was established. The Tribunal however, upheld the contention of the respondent employee that the punishment inflicted on him was disproportionately harsh and amounted to victimisation. It was held that on detecting the mistakes in calculation in the ledger which he pointed out to Shri Manoj Shah, the delinquent had given an abuse expressing his rightuous indignation. It was not necessary for the Tribunal to lend any respectability to the conduct of the respondent employee by describing his outburst as an express of rightuous indignation. The conduct of the respondent employee of abusing his superior officer in the office of the Bank deserves to be condemned in no uncertain words. The question however, still remains as to whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the punishment of dismissal from service to stoppage of one increment. In Ram Kishan v. Union of India and ors. 1996 (1) CLR 26 the Supreme Court observed that when abusive language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be understood in the environment that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding to the event that led to the use of abusive language. No straight jacket formulae could be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant a dismissal from service. No straight jacket formulae could be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant a dismissal from service. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. In that case the Supreme Court imposed stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect in place of punishment of dismissal and also did not award back wages. In Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. - (1984) 2 SCC 569 where the delinquent used very filthy language to a co-worker, the Supreme Court found that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the charge framed against the delinquent. The Supreme Court ordered reinstatement of the workman with full back wages. It would therefore, appear that the utterance of an abuse by the respondent employee under the circumstances of the present case did not warrant an extreme punishment of dismissal. It appears that the respondent employee had expressed his regret about lapses and assured the Superintendent that he would behave properly in future. The authorities had accepted his regret and revoked his suspension order. In view of the power given to the Tribunal under Section 11A of the Act of reducing the punishment, the Tribunal was on the facts of the case justified in substituting the punishment of dismissal for stoppage of one increment. The Tribunal has, for valid reasons held that other three charges were not established against the respondent employee. It was however, not necessary for the Tribunal to infer that the management was out to find fault with the respondent employee in order to build up a case against him especially when it has reached a clear finding that the respondent employee was guilty of misconduct of hurling an abuse against his superior officer. As regards charges Nos. 2, 3 and 4, it is sufficient to observe that there was no material on record to establish these charges against the respondent employee and therefore, findings arrived at by the Tribunal that these three charges were not established, are upheld. 7. The Tribunal has awarded full back wages while ordering reinstatement of the respondent employee and the grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that it ought not to have awarded full back wages to the respondent. 7. The Tribunal has awarded full back wages while ordering reinstatement of the respondent employee and the grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that it ought not to have awarded full back wages to the respondent. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent employee had not given any evidence to show that he was not gainfully employed and therefore, it was not necessary for the petitioner to lead any evidence is misconceived. Before the Tribunal it was not at all urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent employee was gainfully employed during any period. The Tribunal therefore, awarded full back wages since there was no material on record to indicate that the respondent employee was at any point of time gainfully employed. The Tribunal has exercised its discretion in reducing punishment from dismissal to stoppage of one increment and awarded full back wages while directing reinstatement. There is no valid reason to interfere with the order directing back wages to be awarded inasmuch as stoppage of one increment was considered by the Tribunal to be an adequate punishment. The petition is therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Rule discharged.