Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, calling for the records connected with the award in I.D. No. 49/88, dated March 4, 1991 made by the second respondent herein and to quash that portion of award denying back salary for the period of non-employment till the date of reinstatement and direct the first respondent to pay full back salary from the date of non-employment (viz) December 26, 1984 till the date of reinstatement and other attendant benefits. From the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and from the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and in the absence of the respondent-management, what comes to be known is that for a single irregular act of tearing the leave letter which was refused to be accepted and the leave requested having not been sanctioned, a charge memo dated June 20, 1984 has been issued alleging that the petitioner tore the letter in the presence of the supervisor who is superior to him for which, on August 23, 1984, in spite of the petitioner having explained the circumstances denying the charge levelled against him, the management proceeded against the petitioner for holding an enquiry without permitting the assistance of a co-worker so as to defend him in the enquiry as sought for by the petitioner. The management examined three witnesses on its side and ultimately the charge came to be held proved on the petitioner consequently he was dismissed from service on December 26, 1984. The further case of the petitioner is that he raised an industrial dispute in ID. No. 49/1998 before the second respondent and the second respondent also found the charges proved in the domestic enquiry but interfered with the punishment under Section 11-A and directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service without backwages. The further case of the petitioner is that he raised an industrial dispute in ID. No. 49/1998 before the second respondent and the second respondent also found the charges proved in the domestic enquiry but interfered with the punishment under Section 11-A and directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service without backwages. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition on certain grounds as broughtforth in the grounds of the Writ Petition.On an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances encircling the whole case and the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, what comes to be known is that on the crucial day on June 11, 1984 when the petitioner approached the supervisor with the leave letter on account of sudden illness seeking leave, the said supervisor not only refused to sanction the leave but also refused to accept the very leave letter and the petitioner having become provocated at the attitude of the supervisor, tore the leave letter in his presence. The said act on being reported against by the supervisor, a charge memo had been issued on June 20, 1984 followed by the explanation offered on the part of the petitioner on August 23, 1984 which has not been accepted by the authority. Hence, an enquiry has been ordered by the management refusing to permit the co-worker to assist the petitioner during the domestic enquiry. The enquiry was one in which on the part of the management, three witnesses have been examined, but on the part of the petitioner, he examined himself and none else and as the culmination of all these events, the enquiry officer would ultimately find the petitioner guilty of the offence charged, based on which the disciplinary authority, the management had dismissed the petitioner from his service on December 26, 1984. It further comes to be known that on an Industrial Dispute having been raised by the petitioner under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on a reference to the second respondent Labour Court. It further comes to be known that on an Industrial Dispute having been raised by the petitioner under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on a reference to the second respondent Labour Court. The Labour Court having held a thorough enquiry ultimately arrived at a conclusion to concur with the findings of the domestic enquiry so far as the charge coming to be proved but in consideration of the gravity of the charge and the extreme punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority has been interfered with by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and had moulded the relief to the extent of reinstating the petitioner in service but without backwages. The petitioner having become aggrieved of this part of the order of the Labour Court has come forward to file the writ petition seeking to quash that part of denial of the backwages in its order dated March 3, 1991 made in I.D. No. 49/88, by the second respondent Labour Court.On an overall study of the circumstances in the context of the available materials and upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the Labour Court has rightly concurred with the findings of the domestic enquiry in so far as holding the petitioner guilty of the delinquency and also to an extent the Labour Court has justified in its moulding of the relief in setting aside the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority and ordering reinstatement of the petitioner, but without allowing the backwages as claimed by the petitioner therein. In order to decide this question which is the subject of this writ petition, we have to assess the charge and the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. Though there is no dispute over the delinquency committed on the part of the petitioner since according to the available evidence, it has not only been concluded as proved by the enquiry officer, but also such conclusions have been upheld by the Labour Court based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the availability of evidence in which this Court cannot normally interfere with since being a Court of Judicial Review. At the same time taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the gravity of the charge of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority at this stage could very well be arrived at that the punishment of dismissal in relation to the gravity of the charge is not only disproportionate, but also unconscionable and shocking the conscience of the Court. It is rather a case that should have been concluded by the disciplinary authority even in the event of concurring with the finding of the enquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty, either with a censure or with a warning and the extreme penalty of dismissal is not commensurate with the gravity of the charge. In short, the delinquency charged against the petitioner is one which should have been ignored by a man of ordinary sense and temper.Though the Labour Court has moulded the relief by ordering reinstatement of the petitioner, the total denial of the backwages to the petitioner by the Labour Court is perverse and has come into being as a result of thinking on the extreme side. Of course, the petitioner though had not committed a very grave delinquency, still it should also be considered that during the period of dismissal for seven long years, the respondent-management had not gained anything. However, since the management had inflicted unreasonable punishment and obstructed the petitioner from working in the management which also comes to be reflected from the very reinstatement order passed by the Labour Court stating that it cannot be taken as a fault committed on the part of the petitioner. For his non-employment, it is also the management that is more to be blamed, which should have given proportionate punishment depending upon the gravity of the charge and should have allowed the petitioner to work. It is a fault committed on the part of the management in having resorted to dismiss the petitioner from the service on a petty charge which is not only arbitrary and high-handed but also would amount to adopting unfair labour practice. Hence, it is strongly felt that it would be more appropriate to provide with a partial relief regarding the backwages claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition which alone would better serve the ends of justice in the circumstances of the case. Hence, it is strongly felt that it would be more appropriate to provide with a partial relief regarding the backwages claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition which alone would better serve the ends of justice in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the first respondent-management shall pay to the petitioner 25 per cent of the backwages from the date of his dismissal to the date of reinstatement. i.e., the whole period that he was rendered without employment and this amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order by the first respondent-management.In result, in terms of the above directions the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. No. 16863 of 1992 is also closed.