S. D. PANDIT, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Both the learned advocates for the respective waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of respective respondent. ( 2 ) BOTH these petitions are filed respectively by the employer and the workmen against the award passed by the Labour Court Surat on 30. 7. 1997 in Reference No. 482 of 1996. With the consent of the parties both these matters are taken up today for final hearing and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 3 ) HARSHADKUMAR B. Vaishya the petitioner in SCA No. 2766 of 1998 and respondent in SCA No. 2762 of 1998 joined as Assistant Operator, Spg. and Textile Division of the gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. on 24. 8. 1988. He was duly promoted as operator on 21. 10. 1993. He was the office bearer General Secretary of the Labour Union known as gujarat Nylon Employees Association and the same was affiliated to National Federation known as Hindu Mazdoor Sabha. Harshadkumar had resigned from the said post as general Secretary in the year 1994. It is the claim of the workman that when he was office bearer of the union he used to fight for the rights of the workmen and therefore, he had earned the displeasure of the officers of his employer and after his ceasing to be an office bearer of the union they started harassing them. It is his further claim that no incident as alleged by the employer had taken place on 16. 6. 1996, but he was falsely implicated and an illegal departmental inquiry was held against him and he has been dismissed on 6. 7. 1996. ( 4 ) AS against the said claim of the workman it is the claim of the employer that there was no grudge of whatsoever nature against the workman. As soon as he had formed the said Labour Union, the recognition for the said union was given and there was no serious dispute between the union and the employer. There was no question of having any grudge against the office bearer of the said union. Their claim is that the workman has falsely alleged that they have grievance as he happened to be the office bearer of the union and that they started harassing him after he ceased to be the office bearer. According to the employer on 16. 6. Their claim is that the workman has falsely alleged that they have grievance as he happened to be the office bearer of the union and that they started harassing him after he ceased to be the office bearer. According to the employer on 16. 6. 1995, the workman Harshadkumar had used vulgar and abusive language against the officers and had also threatened with dire consequences and had physically assaulted one Mr. P. C. Singh the Dy. Manager in the evening. A complaint was given by said Mr. P. C. Singh on 17. 6. 1995. Thereafter the workman was suspended and he was served with a charge sheet on 21. 6. 1995. The workman had given reply to the said charge sheet but on finding that his reply was not satisfactory the departmental inquiry was proceeded with. The workman did not participated in the same and ultimately the inquiry was completed without his participation and then a show cause notice was issued on 18. 5. 1996 to the workman to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed. He replied the same and after considering his reply as well as report of the departmental inquiry the workman was dismissed on 7. 6. 1996. He therefore, raised an industrial dispute which resulted into Reference No. 482 of 1993. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the departmental inquiry held against the workman was not proper and satisfactory and the Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the misconduct alleged against the workman was not properly proved. Therefore, the Labour Court found that the punishment of dismissal was wrong. The Labour Court therefore, directed reinstatement of the workman with 60 percent of back wages. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the said decision the employer has come before this Court by contending that the finding recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and grossly erroneous resulting into miscarriage of justice. It is contended on behalf of the employer that the misconduct committed by the workman was of a very serious nature and the punishment of dismissal from service was proper and correct punishment in view of the misconduct committed by the work. The Labour Court had no ground to interfere with the order of punishment awarded by the employer. It is contended on behalf of the employer that the misconduct committed by the workman was of a very serious nature and the punishment of dismissal from service was proper and correct punishment in view of the misconduct committed by the work. The Labour Court had no ground to interfere with the order of punishment awarded by the employer. Therefore, the employer is seeking quashing of the award passed by the Labour Court and maintain the punishment awarded by the employer. ( 6 ) THE workman has preferred SCA No. 2766 of 1998. According to the workman the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the misconduct against the workman was not proved therefore there was no justification in denying him back wages and the workman has also come before the Court seeking the implementation of the award as he has not been reinstated inspite of the award for the same. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner was suspended on 17. 6. 1995 and he was served with the chargesheet on 21. 6. 1995 alleging therein that on 16. 6. 1995 he forcibly entered the chamber of Mr. P. C. Singh and there he used vulgar and abusive language against Mr. Singh and other officers and had assaulted Mr. Singh, Dy. Manager. It is also an admitted fact that thereafter a departmental inquiry was held against the workman. In the departmental inquiry the workman was permitted to take assistance of any of his colleagues within the industry but his request to allow him to take the help of a person who was not in the employment of the employer was rejected. On account of the said rejection, the workman had not taken part in the departmental inquiry and consequently the departmental inquiry proceeded ex-parte and the charges levelled against him were inquired into and findings were recorded against him but thereafter show cause notice was also issued to the workman on 18. 5. 1996 to show because as to why he should not be dismissed from service. He replied to the same but ultimately he was dismissed. It is further an admitted fact that at the time of hearing of the reference before the Labour Court, the workman had passed a purshis stating therein that he was not disputing the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry. He replied to the same but ultimately he was dismissed. It is further an admitted fact that at the time of hearing of the reference before the Labour Court, the workman had passed a purshis stating therein that he was not disputing the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry. After he had passed said purshis only the workman was examined on behalf of the workman and the employer had not examined any witness before the Labour Court but had produced paper of departmental inquiry and other documents. ( 8 ) NOW once the workman passes a purshis giving up his contention about the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry, the Labour Court has to consider the material which has come in the departmental inquiry on the footing that the departmental inquiry is valid and legal and then to consider as to whether there was sufficient evidence made out to prove the misconduct alleged against the workman or not. But if the order of the Labour Court is considered then it would be quite clear that the Labour Court has misguided itself while considering the material in the departmental inquiry. The Labour court had observed at 2-3 places that it was not proper on behalf of the inquiry officer to proceed with the ex-parte hearing. He has further observed that after proceeding with the hearing of the departmental inquiry the workman ought to have been given opportunity of cross examining the witness by issuing fresh notices to him. The Labour Court has also further observed that the inquiry officer ought to have issued notices to the workman after recording of the evidence of the witness of the employer to come before him and to cross examine the witness and as that was not done, the inquiry was not proper. The Labour court has also observed that the department had not examined one witness by name rupen Amin. He has given much weight for non examinatioin of Rupen Amin. He had also found that the claim of the workman that he was being victimised on account of he being former office bearer of the union seems to be correct and proper and goes on holding that the action of dismissing the workman from services appears to have been taken under victimisation. ( 9 ) IT seems that the whole approach of the Labour Court is perverse and totally erroneous. ( 9 ) IT seems that the whole approach of the Labour Court is perverse and totally erroneous. Once the workman has passed a purshis that he is not disputing the legality and validity of the inquiry, it is not open for the Labour Court to go into the question and to consider as to whether the departmental inquiry was properly and validly conducted or not. The Labour Court has repeatedly mentioned that the departmental inquiry was not properly held and the finding recorded in the departmental inquiry is perverse without giving any reason for coming to such a conclusion. The approach of the Labour Court to the aspect of non examination of Rupen Amin is also totally illegal and erroneous. Admittedly in the departmental inquiry deposition of Mr. P. S. Singh, Dy. Manager, P. K, saxena, Manager, A. H. Mulla Sr. Manager and K. P. Bhatt Chief Manager were recorded. Mr. Singh is the person who was physically assaulted and he and other officers were abused by using filthy and vulgar language and they were also threatened with dire consequences. Rupen Amin may be also a witness along with them to the incident in question. It is settled law that when an incident is to be proved it is open for the party alleging the incident not to examine each and every witness. The party must produce sufficient evidence to prove the charge/acquisition. The Labour Court has not recorded any where as to why examination of Rupen Amin is necessary except mentioning that he was also one of the witnesses to the incident. But when there was no cross examination, of four witnesses examined, by the workman if the department drops the 5th witness there could not be a ground to draw adverse inference against the department under Sec. 114-G of the Evidence Act. Adverse inference could be drawn against the party for its failure to examine the witness if it is shown that the witness who is not examined, was the sole and material witness. It must be remembered that it is not the quantity of evidence that is to be seen but it is the quality of the evidence is to be seen and this weighs in considering the proof of any fact. It must be remembered that it is not the quantity of evidence that is to be seen but it is the quality of the evidence is to be seen and this weighs in considering the proof of any fact. ( 10 ) THUS the Labour Court was not at all justified in coming to the conclusion that non examination of Amin results into non believing the claim of the department. It is pertinent to note that the Labour Court has no where even doubted the testimony of the witnesses of the department. The Labour Court has not discussed their evidence and has not mentioned by giving reasons that for the reasons recorded by the Labour Court the evidence of those four witnesses could not be believed and accepted. The Labour Court has not given any reason as to why he was not accepting the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer in the departmental inquiry. The Labour Court had given only two reasons for holding that the material on record could not be accepted and those two reasons are (1) no cross-examination of the witnesses by the delinquent and (2) non examination of rupen Amin. It is very pertinent to note that it is no where claimed by the workman himself that he was denied the opportunity of cross examining the witnesses. He was given opportunity to take assistance of his colleague in the departmental proceedings. He had notice of the departmental but he insisted of taking assistance from the person who is not an employee of the employer. It was no where shown during the inquiry or before the labour Court that under the Rules, the workman was entitled to take assistance of a person from outside. Mr. H. K. Rathod learned advocate for the workman in his usual fairness stated that there was no denial of opportunity of cross examining the witness in the departmental inquiry proceedings and there was no denial of any rules of taking assistance of an outsider. Therefore, in the circumstance, said reasons given by the Labour court was false. As regards the second ground, as already discussed above the non examination of one of out of eye witnesses would not be a ground to reject the evidence when other eye witnesses to the incident are examined. The inquiry officer has believed the witnesses examined before him. Therefore, in the circumstance, said reasons given by the Labour court was false. As regards the second ground, as already discussed above the non examination of one of out of eye witnesses would not be a ground to reject the evidence when other eye witnesses to the incident are examined. The inquiry officer has believed the witnesses examined before him. The Labour Court has not given any reasons and has also not recorded a finding that the inquiry officer was not justified in accepting and believing the evidence led in the departmental inquiry. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, in the circumstances there was no justification for the Labour Court to interfere with the finding recorded in the department inquiry. It is settled law that the labour Court can interfere with the finding of the inquiry officer of departmental inquiry in case is they are with no evidence or if they are perverse or grossly erroneous. As none of these cases existed the finding recorded in the departmental inquiry will have to be accepted. ( 12 ) IT must be mentioned here that the Labour Court has not also given any reason for its coming to a conclusion that there was a case of victimisatiion of the workman. ( 13 ) ADMITTEDLY the workman was the General Secretary of the Labour Union till the year 1994. The workman was an Assistant Operator on 24. 8. 1988 had he got promotion as a regular operator on 21. 10. 1993. It is no where shown during the inquiry before the labour Court that previous to the departmental inquiry in question any other inquiry was held against the workman, it was not shown that he was ever wrongly punished by the employer. It is also not shown that there was any malice or personal malafides of any of the officers of the workman personally. It is also not shown that the workman had come forward during his regime as office bearer he had fought for certain benefits for the workman and that because of this fighting the workman got those benefits. In the absence of all these circumstances, it is not at all possible to believe and accept the claim of the workman that because of he being the office bearer, the officers of the employer had grudge against him. In the absence of all these circumstances, it is not at all possible to believe and accept the claim of the workman that because of he being the office bearer, the officers of the employer had grudge against him. ( 14 ) THEREFORE, it will have to be held that in view of the evidence led in the departmental inquiry the inquiry officer was justified in holding that the delinquent-workman has committed misconduct alleged against him. In view of the above discussion of the finding of the Labour Court in this aspect is totally erroneous and perverse. ( 15 ) THE next question to be considered is as to whether punishment given by the employer is adequate or not. The employer had awarded punishment of dismissal from service. It must be remembered that when the Labour Court or any other Court is considering the question of punishment it has to consider as to whether as a reasonable and prudent employer would have give" the same punishment which wax given to the workman who was before them in view of the misconduct alleged and proved against him. In the instant case the charge against the workman is that he entered the chamber of his higher officer and abused by using vulgar and filthy language and gave threats of dire consequences and physically assaulted one of the officers. Once it is found that such a charge is proved then it is very difficult to hold that a reasonable and prudent employer will like to continue such workman with him. The misconduct alleged and proved against the present delinquent workman was such that the punishment of dismissal will have to be treated and accepted as proper and just punishment. ( 16 ) LEARNED advocate for the workman has cited before me the cases of Lipton (India) Ltd. vs. State of UP. 1997 75 FLR 454, Palghat RPL and PSP Tozilali Union vs. BPL India Ltd. and Anr:, 1992 2 LLJ 335. A. Venketaraman vs. Chairman Industrial tribunal cum Labour Court, 1996 (2) Lab IC 1895 and State of Tamil Nadu vs. N. Natarajan, 1997 0 AIR (SCW) 3163 in support of his contention that the punishment of dismissal from service was not justified. But the facts of those cases are quite different and they could not be said to be applicable to the facts of the present case before me. But the facts of those cases are quite different and they could not be said to be applicable to the facts of the present case before me. In the first case of Lipton (India) Ltd. (Supra) the employer had charge-sheeted the workman ram Babu Sharma for fraud and dishonesty. In that case, the Labour Court has reappreciated the evidence and had held that the allegation against respondent No. 3 were not proved and that at the most it could be said that there was suspicion against the respondent No. 3. That finding of the Labour Court was accepted and upheld by the High court. But even in that case the High Court had come to the conclusion that it was not a fit case for reinstatement and compensation was awarded to the workman. In the case of palghat BPL Tozilai Union (Supra) the workmen have committed misconduct of abusing and assaulting their officers outside the premises of the factory. Then it was also found that by the Apex Court in that case that the workers were on strike and there were negotiations for settlement, the terms of settlement were agreed upon but on the next day the management withdrawn from the said settlement and therefore, the workman were enraged and the incident in question had taken place. Therefore, in those circumstances when one of the officers was injured on account of pelting stones on a public road when he was proceeding to his house it has been held by the Supreme Court that misconduct was committed outside the premises of the factor and therefore the same would not be view seriously and therefore, order of dismissal was held to be not justified. The workmen were reinstated by denying 75 of back wages. In the case of A. Venketaraman (Supra) the single Judge has held that the misconduct of an attempt to assault an officer though proved was not justified imposition of punishment of removal from service. So in that case there was merely an attempt and there was no actual assault on the superior officer. In the instant case before me there is actual assault of the superior officer. In the case of state of Tamil Nadu (Supra) the allegation against the respondent, was that they had misbehaved with two ladies and outraged their modesty and took them into look up in the 2. In the instant case before me there is actual assault of the superior officer. In the case of state of Tamil Nadu (Supra) the allegation against the respondent, was that they had misbehaved with two ladies and outraged their modesty and took them into look up in the 2. 00 hours and when two persons intervened they were beaten up. In that case the inquiry officer himself had recommended the imposition of penalty of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect and inspite of the same, disciplinary authority had awarded punishment of dismissal and therefore, the Apex Court had interfered with the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, this case could not be of any help to the facts of the present case before me. In the earlier case of ITC @ Bhadrachalam Paper and boards Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Warrangal, 1993 0 LLR 978 the single Judge had a interfered with the order of the Labour Court by which the order of removal was set aside. In that case also the charge against the workman was of misconduct of assaulting and abusing the security manager. Similarly single Judge of allahabad High Court in the case of M. C. Gupta vs. Labour Court at Merrut, 1997 LLR 389 on the proof of charge of abusing and threatening and beating of personnel officer, punishment of dismissal was held to be proper. Even in the above said case of Palghat bpl Tozilali Union the Apex Court has held that misconduct vis-a-vis the office manager would be a misconduct of serious nature. ( 17 ) IN view of the above discussion misconduct alleged against the workman is proved and the misconduct of the workman is of such a nature that no reasonable or prudent employer would like to continue with the workman. But after taking into consideration the young age of the workman and the present economic situation I would only substitute the order of dismissal by saying that of discharge and entitlement of the workman to get compensation of Rs. 50,000/ -. That will reduce the blot on his career and will enable the workman to take some steps to settle in life. ( 18 ) THUS I hold that SCA No. 2762 of 1998 will have to he allowed. The award passed by the Labour Court in Reference No. 482/96 on 30. 7. 50,000/ -. That will reduce the blot on his career and will enable the workman to take some steps to settle in life. ( 18 ) THUS I hold that SCA No. 2762 of 1998 will have to he allowed. The award passed by the Labour Court in Reference No. 482/96 on 30. 7. 1997 is quashed and set aside and in its place it is ordered that the workman is discharged and is to get Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation. SCA No. 2766 of 1998 is dismissed. Rule is discharged in the said SCA; whereas Rule is SCA No. 2762 of 1998 is made absolute in the above terms. The parties to bear their costs in each matter. .