JUDGMENT : Jain, J.—This writ appeal is filed by the management against the order of the learned single Judge, dated January 9, 1998, and made in W.P. No. 6594 of 1991, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, and set aside the order of dismissal by the management and the award of the first respondent and directed the reinstatement of the second respondent with back-wages and continuity of service. 2. It is alleged that the second respondent was employed as Checking Inspector by the appellant/management. It is alleged that on September 21, 1979, the second respondent, without any cause, attempted to which is not a part of his job drive the parked bus, resulting in the bus hitting against a cycle and a lamp post and causing damage. A charge memo was issued and after due enquiry, he was dismissed from service. It is further alleged that the Labour Court upheld the order of dismissal. Challenging that, the second respondent filed the writ petition and the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, as stated above. Hence, this writ appeal by the management, 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that after affording due and sufficient opportunity, the second respondent was dismissed from service and the Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence let in, found no irregularity and as such, affirmed the order of dismissal. However, the interference by the learned single Judge is uncalled for. More so, when the Labour Court has considered the arguments of both parties and found as a matter of fact that the punishment imposed was not disproportionate to the charge proved. It is also submitted that Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act can be invoked only when the Labour Court's Order is not valid or justified. It is further submitted that the second respondent had admitted the guilt and he did not have a valid licence to drive the vehicle. Nor it was a part of his duty. As such, the punishment imposed was justified. He further submitted that the second respondent alone refused to cross examine the witnesses and refused to sign the enquiry proceedings. 4. To this, counsel for the second respondent submits that the reason for dismissal is not justified and as the second respondent demanded his salary, he was punished and victimised. 5. As such, the punishment imposed was justified. He further submitted that the second respondent alone refused to cross examine the witnesses and refused to sign the enquiry proceedings. 4. To this, counsel for the second respondent submits that the reason for dismissal is not justified and as the second respondent demanded his salary, he was punished and victimised. 5. We have heard counsel on both sides and perused the material on record. The argument of the learned counsel for the second respondent is not tenable, since he never raised this contention at the appropriate stage. Not even cross examine, when sufficient opportunity was there. Rather, he has admitted his guilt. So, now he cannot be allowed to raise this point. Counsel for the second respondent has not been able to show any illegality or error in the order passed by the Labour Court. The observation of the learned single Judge that for the last 11 years, the second respondent was not involved in any cheating or misappropriation, is not at all relevant. So also, the observation that the punishment in the facts of the case is on the higher side is not acceptable. In the facts of the given case, the punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate. Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed; the award passed by the Labour Court, dated dated January 21, 1991, is restored and the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.