Judgment :- C. Shivappa, J. 1. The appellant, being aggrieved against the order of remand, dated 30.8.1996 in W.P. No. 8273 of 1986, has challenged the same on the ground that the learned single Judge having noticed the misconduct being proved, erred in holding that the factors like length of service and the age of the workman would have to be taken into consideration to determine the quantum of punishment. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on a decision in (1980) I LLN 211, contended that the length of service is not a criteria to decide the quantum of punishment and the finding of the learned Judge is opposed to the above principle. 3. A Division Bench of this Court, in The Chairman, Railway Board& Ors. v. Sainson, 1995 WLR 379 has held that it is always open to the court to interfere, if it is of the opinion that the penalty imposed is harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. 4. In Colour Chem Ltd. v. A. L. Alaspurkar, 1998 I CLR 638 S.C., the Apex Court, while dealing with the punishment, has held thus : "But they are all adjuncts and corollaries or appendages of the principal subject, namely, minor or technical misconduct which in a given set of cases may amount to resulting in a shockingly disproportionate punishment if they are followed by discharge or dismissal of the delinquent ....... ... Even on the basis that it was a major misconduct which was alleged and proved looking to the past record of the service of the delinquents no reasonable employer could have imposed punishment of dismissal. The past record was to the effect that Respondent 3 was once found allegedly gambling in the factory premises but was in fact found to be playing cards on a Diwali day which was a public holiday, while the only past misconduct alleged against Respondent 4 was that on one occasion he was warned for negligent discharge of duty. Looking to the nature of the charges levelled against them, therefore, and even in the light of their past service record it could not be said that for such misconduct they were liable to be dismissed from service. Such punishment patently appear to be grossly disproportionate to the nature of the charges held proved against them". 5. Looking to the nature of the charges levelled against them, therefore, and even in the light of their past service record it could not be said that for such misconduct they were liable to be dismissed from service. Such punishment patently appear to be grossly disproportionate to the nature of the charges held proved against them". 5. In Rama Kant Misra v. State of U.P. at para 8, the Apex Court has held that past service is a relevant criteria to determine the quantum of punishment. While determining the quantum of punishment, the power has to be exercised objectively with due application of mind to various relevant circumstances like the nature of delinquency committed by the workman, his past conduct, the impact of the delinquency on the employer's business, the total length of service, the past record etc. 6. The learned single Judge, while considering the quantum of punishment, observed that the Labour Court should have taken into consideration all the materials like age, length of service, nature of misconduct, whether the misconduct alleged was the first one in hit service or whether he had clean and unblemished service record etc. He has further observed that the Labour Court has failed to take, into account all the relevant factors and mitigating circumstances in favour of the petitioner when considering the question whether the quantum of punishment was proportionate to the misconduct and whether - the petitioner deserved a lenient punishment and hence remitted the matter to reconsider the entire matter afresh and award suitable punishment. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant alternatively contended that the order of remand to consider the entire matter afresh is unsustainable in view of the specific finding that the management did not act hastily or vindictively and it had been very considerate towards respondent No. 2 herein. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel that there is no justification to remand to consider the entire matter afresh. But the learned Judge is justified in remitting the matter to consider the award regarding the quantum of punishment alone in the light of Section11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, we observe that the Labour Court may confine itself only to determine the quantum of punishment, without going into the entire matter afresh.8. But the learned Judge is justified in remitting the matter to consider the award regarding the quantum of punishment alone in the light of Section11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, we observe that the Labour Court may confine itself only to determine the quantum of punishment, without going into the entire matter afresh.8. With the above observation, the writ appeal is dismissed and the order of remand passed by the learned single Judge is confirmed. Parties to bear their own costs.