Judgment :- N.K. JAIN, J. The management has filed this writ petition challenging the award passed by the Labour Court made in I.D. No. 351 of 1989 on April 1, 1991, reinstating the workman without back-wages. Necessary facts leading to the disposal of the writ petition are : That the second respondent-workman joined as a junior clerk in the petitioner bank in the year 1963. As serious lapses were found, he was suspended by order dated February 4, 1986. After conducting an enquiry, the enquiry officer, finding that the charges levelled against the workman were proved, dismissed him from service. On appeal, the Labour Court, holding that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is fair and proper, found that the punishment of dismissal is extreme and ordered his reinstatement without back-wages, as stated. Challenging the same, the petitioner-bank has filed this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the management/petitioner contended that charges levelled against the workman have been proved. So, once the charge, like the serious lapse involving misappropriation of 331 bags of pledged paddy and other shortage of stock is proved, then it was not incumbent on the part of the Labour Court to invoke Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. He relied on the decision in Management of Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Prakasam, (1999-III-LLJ (Suppl)-1377) (Mad). It is also submitted that the workman never challenged the guilt, so the question of invoking Section 11-A of the Act does not arise. Further, it is stated that the Labour Court had not gone into the question as to what are the mitigating circumstances calling for interference. As such, the order of the Labour Court is liable to be quashed.Mr. N. G. R. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the workman, submitted that Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the Labour Court to re-appreciate the evidence in the enquiry and to go into the circumstances of the case and can interfere with the punishment. He submits that on consideration, the Labour Court ordered for reinstatement without back-wages. So the order need not be interfered with. He relied on the decisions in T. Muthusamy v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (1991-II-LLJ-405) (Mad) and in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. (1973-I-LLJ-278). He submits that on consideration, the Labour Court ordered for reinstatement without back-wages. So the order need not be interfered with. He relied on the decisions in T. Muthusamy v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (1991-II-LLJ-405) (Mad) and in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. (1973-I-LLJ-278). I have heard learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record and the case law. Relevant portions of evidence had been brought to my notice, and the case law. No doubt that Section 11-A of the Act empowers the Court to modify or to review the order of discharge or dismissal, if it is not justified. It is also settled that the imposition of punishment is within the discretion of the judge and of the disciplinary authority. Normally, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not interfere with the discretion so exercised, unless it is arbitrary. It is seen that the workman had not controverted the charges proved, but only submitted that the Court should interfere with the punishment imposed, exercising the power under Section 11-A of the Act. In the instant case, out of the charges so framed, the charge of misappropriation of 331 bags of pledged paddy and other shortage of stocks was amply proved. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials available on record, I find the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances prevailed, viz. the charge has been proved but not challenged. But, under the circumstances taking note of the gravity of the charges proved, I find no valid and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the enquiry officer. As such, the order of reinstatement is not justifiable. So, on this ground the order of the Labour Court, reinstating the worker is liable to be set aside. A reference can be made to the case in State Bank of India v. Samerendra Kishore Endowment (1994-I-LLJ-872), and the decision in U.P. State Roadways Corporation v. A. K. Parul, (1999-III-LLJ (Suppl)-1093).Learned Counsel for the workman submitted that if the order of the Labour Court reinstating his service without back-wages is maintained he will have only one more year in service and as such, on humanitarian considerations it may be considered. This argument of the workman is not acceptable for the reasons stated above. It is also seen that the worker was paid allowance under Section 17-B of the Act, the last drawn wages, under the facts of the given case, once the charge has been proved, as stated above, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges proved. So, he cannot be allowed to be reinstated into service, on this aspect and the submission of learned Counsel for the worker is rejected. So far as the argument of learned Counsel for the bank that the petitioner/bank is entitled to get refund of the amount so paid, as the reinstatement is set aside, is also not acceptable as the worker was paid, in pursuance of the orders of this Court under Section 17-B of the Act. At this stage, this Court will not go into the factual aspect as to whether the worker was in gainful employment or not. In view of what has been stated above, the order of reinstatement made by the Labour Court is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is also closed. Stay granted is vacated.