JUDGMENT : R.J. KOCHAR, J. The petitioner workman has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality and validity of the award Part II dated 10th June 1991 passed by the first Labour Court at Pune in reference No. IDA No. 371 of 1986. 2. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Operator vide an appointment letter dated 10th February 1979. According to the petitioner, he was sincere and deligent and had always discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and had unblemished service record. The petitioner himself has claimed that as a result of his work and clean record he was granted annual increment from 1980 to 1985 and that within a very short span he was promoted to the Grade of Senior Operator (E Grade). I have specifically mentioned these facts, averred by the petitioner himself to show that he was correctly and properly treated by the employer Company and there was nothing against him as such, though subsequently he has alleged that being a union activists, he has been penalised by way of dismissal from employment for which he raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the first Labour Court, Pune. 3. The dispute appears to have arisen when on 27th October, 1985, he refused to do certain work on a certain machine in accordance with lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors. For this act of his refusal to do the work on a particular machine, he was issued a show cause notice dated 29th October, 1985 and was called upon to submit his explanation. The said show cause notice was followed by a formal charge-sheet dated 8th November 1985, wherein the very same charge was levelled against him. He was also accused of using insulting language with his supervisor. It was also alleged against him that on 28th October, 1985, though he was on sanctioned leave, he had entered the factory premises at about 4 p.m. without prior permission and he had held a meeting of workers of power cable division in power cable shed. For all these charges, he was charge-sheeted and was kept under suspension with immediate effect during pendency of the domestic enquiry. For all these charges, he was charge-sheeted and was kept under suspension with immediate effect during pendency of the domestic enquiry. He was also served with a third memo called a formal charge-sheet and notice of enquiry dated 18th November 1985, which contained the same charges and he was called upon to submit his written explanation and also to attend the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his written explanation to the charges levelled against him by his letter dated 31st June, 1985, denying the charges levelled against him and explaining his own position. 4. The respondent Company had held domestic enquiry in the charges. The company on receipt of the findings from the enquiry officer, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him, passed an order dated 10th May, 1986 discharging him from employment. 5. On discharge from the employment he raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication by the State Government to the Labour court. Before the Labour Court, he filed his statement of claim to which the respondent company replied by way of filing its written statement, both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry held by the respondent Company was fair and proper and whether the findings were perverse or not. The Labour Court by its award Part I dated 10th December 1990 answered both the issues against the petitioner workman and held that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings were not perverse. While deciding both these issues the Labour Court has given a reasoned finding on appreciation of not only the evidence in the enquiry but also the evidence before him. He did not grant the relief of reinstatement with full back wages. 6. Thereafter came the second stage of considering the quantum of punishment under section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Labour Court while moulding the final reliefs, considered the question of punishment in the background of the charges levelled against the workman, his past record and other factors. The learned Labour Court has recorded that the punishment awarded to the workman is shockingly disproportionate, and therefore, as a consequence he has moulded relief of granting a sum of Rs. The learned Labour Court has recorded that the punishment awarded to the workman is shockingly disproportionate, and therefore, as a consequence he has moulded relief of granting a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as a compensation with a view in mind that with the said amount the petitioner could start his own business. He did not, therefore, grant the relief of reinstatement with full backwages. 7. I have carefully considered the award Part II passed by the Labour Court. I do not agree with the findings of the Labour Court that the punishment of discharge imposed by the Company on the workman is exactly shockingly disproportionate. I am afraid considering the charges of insubordination and refusal to work as per the lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors would amount to a punishment which is “shockingly disproportionate”. If a workman does not obey the lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors and uses arrogant and insulting language, such a misconduct cannot be treated leniently. I, however, hasten to add that in the present case, even the supervisors who were tossing the workman from one department to another and from one machine to other, were not exactly fair to the workman. Much was desired from their behaviour and orders. It is clear from the evidence in the enquiry that after receipt of one order from one superior he reported at that place when his absence at the erstwhile working place was questioned by the supervisor and in turn once again he was ordered to work on a third machine. 8. It appears that this tossing from one machine to the other machine has irked the petitioner. The supervisors and the superiors also should treat the workman with equal respect and should not create a situation whereby the workman also loses his temper and get irritated or annoyed. The supervisors/superiors are also expected to have restrainful attitude and they must tackle the situation wisely and in a better manner. Nonetheless, in the present matter, the petitioner workman should have accepted the orders and should have obeyed them. He should not have flatly refused to work on the machine “at any cost”. Whatever grievances he had, he could have placed them through his union before the proper authority in the factory. Though it is true that every order the workman cannot demand in writing, as that will create chaotic situation in the factory. He should not have flatly refused to work on the machine “at any cost”. Whatever grievances he had, he could have placed them through his union before the proper authority in the factory. Though it is true that every order the workman cannot demand in writing, as that will create chaotic situation in the factory. I, however, feel that if any workman, as in the present case, where there is change in the working or where there is any change in the machine operated by him, there is nothing wrong or unusual to issue appropriate orders to satisfy the demand of such a workman. In the present case, the petitioner had demanded an order in writing and the supervisor appears to have felt offended by such a demand from the petitioner, and therefore, he refused to give such an order in writing. It is significant to note that even the trade union's General Secretary appears to have not favored the behaviour of the petitioner. It was also not proper for the petitioner to have gathered the workman around him which appeared to the management that he had held a meeting in the premises of the factory without permission. This behaviour of the petitioner had cumulative effect, not only on the management but also is reflected in the judgment and order of the Labour Court. Since the Labour Court has considered all these aspects and has recorded its findings under section 11(A) of the Act, while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am not able to interfere with such a finding though I may agree with some points and may not agree with some, on which the labour court has given its reasoned conclusions. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the punishment of discharge (wrongly described as dismissal) was shockingly disproportionate. I do not agree with the word “shockingly” but I am also of the opinion that the punishment is not commensurate with the charges levelled against the petitioner workman. I would say that the punishment is not proportionate. In the circumstances, without interfering with the findings of the Labour Court and the relief which is granted by it to the workman in the monetary terms of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation, according to me, the ends of justice would meet if the amount of compensation in the given circumstances is enhanced. 9. In the circumstances, without interfering with the findings of the Labour Court and the relief which is granted by it to the workman in the monetary terms of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation, according to me, the ends of justice would meet if the amount of compensation in the given circumstances is enhanced. 9. The present was a border line case for me, and therefore, I had suggested to the learned Advocate Shri V.P. Sawant who appears for the Company that the amount of compensation should be increased. On the next date Shri Purav the learned Advocate for the Company informed me that the figure of Rs. 50,000/- suggested by me was acceptable to the Company. In addition to the said amount, the learned Advocate for the Company accepted my suggestion that in addition to the said amount of Rs. 50,000 in lieu of reinstatement, the terminal benefits such as retrenchment compensation and gratuity also be paid to the petitioner workman. The learned Advocate for the Company has fairly accepted to pay the said benefits to be computed on the basis of the wages as on the date of the Part II award. It is, however, unfortunate that the petitioner was not agreeable to the said suggestion which was accepted by the respondent company. 10. The Labour Court has found on the basis of the material on record that the misconduct was proved by the respondent Company and that the petitioner was gainfully employed during this period was also proved, and therefore, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner had suppressed and had not come out with true facts which were within his knowledge and has therefore observed, and according to me, rightly, that no backwages could be awarded to him. 11. Considering all the aspects of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said award given by the Labour Court. It would, however, be open to the petitioner to accept the amount which would be computed by the Company on the above basis as per my suggestion within a period of 8 weeks from today. If the petitioner workman informs the respondent Company his willingness to accept the said amount, the respondent Company would pay the same within two weeks therefrom. 12. The petition therefore stands dismissed. 13. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 14. If the petitioner workman informs the respondent Company his willingness to accept the said amount, the respondent Company would pay the same within two weeks therefrom. 12. The petition therefore stands dismissed. 13. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 14. Parties to act on a copy of the order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar.