Honble PRASAD, J.–By this petition the petitioner State Electricity Board has impugned the award passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur dated 6.3.1985. By this award, the Tribunal held the enquiry conducted against the respondent workman as valid. However, the Tribunal was of the view that punishment awarded to the workman was disproportionate to the act committed by him and, therefore, the Tribunal exercised its powers u/Sec. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and altered the punishment to one of stoppage of four increments without cumula- tive effect. (2). The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has not considered the gravity of the charges against the workman in right perspective. The workman was guilty of in-subordination and also abusing the family members of its officer and in this view of the matter the disciplinary authority was right in awarding dismissal from service. (3). The learned counsel for the respondent workman has joined the issue and has stated that the order of Tribunal is supported by various decisions of the Honble Supreme Court and of Full Bench decision of this Court, whereby, it is held that the Tribunal has right to interfere under Section 11 A of the Act with the amount of punishment imposed if the same shockingly dis- proportionate to the degree of guilt committed by the workman concerned. Since, the dismissal amount to a situation where the workman is punished to go out of service, he will be deprived of his livelihood and for an act of in-subordination for a momentary period his whole life is ruined, and reformatory School of punishment wants that one opportunity should be given to the employee to improve himself and it was under these circumstances the Tribunal had reduced the punishment. If the Tribunal has reduced the punishment, then this Court would be slow in interfering with the dis- cretion exercised by the Tribunal. (4). I have considered the rival submissions. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that the order of dismissal is too harsh a punishment for an act committed by him, and as the Tribunal has taken into consideration the gravity of allegations, it would not be proper for this Court to go into all the facts and the Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction with competence. This Court do not see any flagrant violation of judicial norms and, therefore, is not inclined to interfere in the award made by the Tribunal. The award is maintained with the modification, which the respondent workman has offered, that he gives up his claim for back wages upto the date of award i.e. 6.3.1985. With this modifi- cation, that the back wages upto the date of award will not be granted as given up by the petitioner, the award is maintained. (5). The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with the aforesaid observations, with no orders as to costs.