Judgment :- R.Jayasimha Babu, J. The charge against the respondent workman found by the Labour Court to have been proved is that on 18.07.1987 around 2.00 a.m. the workman had, along with a Durwan, gone to the stockyard of the employer, had demanded entry, and on being refused by two other Durwans who were on duty, had abused and threatened them. The Labour Court held that the penalty of dismissal which the employer had imposed by the order dated 02.01.1988 was disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Exercising it's powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court by it's order dated 30.03.1993 reduced the penalty to loss of increment for one year without cumulative effect, and directed reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. That order of the Labour Court has been sustained by the learned single Judge. The back wages, however, has been reduced to Rs.25,000/-. The workman is not aggrieved by the reduction in the quantum of back-wages. 2. The domestic enquiry revealed that one of the Durwans who had complained against the conduct of the delinquent workman had called the police without having informing his superiors though he had claimed that he had informed the superiors and with their permission, had summoned the police who had arrested the delinquent workman shortly after the incident. It may be noted here that the workman was released on bail within a few hours thereafter, and the prosecution that was subsequently launched ended in acquittal. The enquiry also revealed that the complainant Durwan had on an earlier occasion given another police complaint against this workman alleging that he had been slapped and that he had subsequently withdrawn the complaint. The delinquent workman had also produced documents at the enquiry showing that the complainant Durwan had been treated for mental illness at a prior point of time. 3. In the charge that was framed against the workman there was no mention that the workman was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. One of the Durwans while deposing at the enquiry claimed that he had smelt alcohol when he had given drinking water to the workman who had asked for it. The enquiry officer however did not hold that the workman was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. 4. One of the Durwans while deposing at the enquiry claimed that he had smelt alcohol when he had given drinking water to the workman who had asked for it. The enquiry officer however did not hold that the workman was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. 4. The defence that was put-forth by the workman was that he was Secretary of the Union, that a Durwan named Bhadra Rao, who belonged to the Union, and who was to have been on duty at the stockyard from 10.00 pm to 06.00 am had come to him on the night of 17th and had sought his help to persuade the Durwans on duty in the stockyard to allow him enter the stockyard, as those Durwans had denied him entry on the ground that he had reported very late; that the delinquent had accompanied Bhadra Rao to stockyard at 01.00 am and had sought to persuade the Durwans on duty to allow Bhadra Rao to enter the stockyard and do duty. The workman denied that he had abused and threatened those Durwans. 5. The learned single Judge agreeing with the Labour Court held that abusive language had been used, but in the context of the facts found by the Labour Court, the misconduct could not be regarded as sufficiently grave to justify dismissal, and that the dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. 6. Learned counsel for the employer vehemently urged before us that no workman has a right to abuse a co-worker and the misconduct of disorderly behaviour and intimidation of the co-employee warranted punishment of utmost severity. Counsel also submitted that in the event of the workman being found to be eligible for being reinstated, instead of reinstatement compensation should be awarded. 7. It is well settled that the power of adjudicatory authorities under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily or whimsically, that reasons must be given for substituting a lesser punishment or compensation for the penalty awarded by the management, and that the power so exercised is subject to judicial review by the High Court and the Supreme Court. It has been so held in several decisions of the apex Court - Christian Medical College Hospital Employees Union vs. C.M.C. Vellore Association, (1987) 4 SCC 691 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Subash Chandra Sharma, (2000) 3 SCC 324 . 8. The question requiring our consideration is as to whether the penalty of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct and if not, whether compensation should be awarded instead of reinstatement. 9. The apex Court in the case of Rama Kant Misra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 3 SCC 346 considered a situation somewhat similar. In that case the Court after having found that, ".....in the ultimate analysis the misconduct is use of language indiscreet or may be said to be indecent or may be disclosing a threatening posture" held that ".......indiscreet, improper, abusive language may show lack of culture but merely the use of such language on one occasion unconnected with any subsequent positive action and not preceded by any blameworthy conduct cannot permit an extreme penalty of dismissal from service." 10. In the case of Ved Prakash Gupta vs. M/s. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 569 the apex Court has held that the dismissal of an employee "...... for a flimsy charge of abuse of some worker or officer of the management by the appellant within the premises of the factory, invalid and unsustainable in law." 11. In the recent case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Subhas Chandra Sharma, (2000) 3 SCC 324 which was also a case involving the use of abusive language by a workman, the Court held that when the charge proved at the stage of enquiry was that the workman ".... in a drunken state, along with the Conductor went to the Assistant Cashier in the cash room of the appellant and demanded money from the Assistant Cashier, and When the Assistant Cashier refused, the respondent abused him and threatened to assault him", the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the order of removal from service. 12. No workman has a licence to use abusive language against his co-workers, subordinates or superiors. 12. No workman has a licence to use abusive language against his co-workers, subordinates or superiors. However, when the misconduct proved is only the use of abusive terms without anything more and the person to whom such language is used is another workman of the same or lower category and there is no overt act by the delinquent workman, such misconduct while requiring to be penalised, would not normally justify the extreme penalty of dismissal from service, especially where the delinquent workman has put in long years of service, as in this case, the delinquent workman who is an ex-service man who had joined the services of the employer in the year 1975 and had at the time of dismissal put in 13 years of service. The actual words used, the duration and the surrounding circumstances have to be taken note of, while deciding as to whether dismissal is a shockingly disproportionate punishment. If a workman were to abuse in filthy language the Manager in the presence of others dismissal would not be disproportionate, but would be fully warranted. 13. The workman had gone to the stockyard in order to persuade the Durwans on duty to allow Bhadra Rao to do duty in the night shift despite his having reported late for duty. He had used abusive language and threatened to enter the stock yard. He, however, remained outside and made no attempt to enter. The charge did not allege that the workman was under the influence of alcohol, nor did the Enquiry Officer find from anything said at the enquiry that the workman was under the influence of alcohol. In the context of these facts, the penalty of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate. Reinstatement was rightly directed by the Labour Court. 14. It was not the case of the employer before the Labour Court or before learned single Judge that the compensation in lieu of reinstatement should have been awarded. The workman, in this case had entered the services of the employer as a Messenger and has been promoted as an Assistant after about six years, and was serving as Assistant and had put in about thirteen years of service at the time of his dismissal. He was not holding a position of trust and confidence. 15. The workman, in this case had entered the services of the employer as a Messenger and has been promoted as an Assistant after about six years, and was serving as Assistant and had put in about thirteen years of service at the time of his dismissal. He was not holding a position of trust and confidence. 15. Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the observations of the apex Court in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. vs. Workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd., (1990) 3 SCC 565 - "Reinstatement has not been considered as either desirable or expedient in certain cases where there had been strained relations between the employer and the employee, when the post held by the aggrieved employee had been one of trust and confidence, or when, though dismissal or discharge was unsustainable owing to some infirmity in the impugned order, the employee was found to have been guilty of an activity subversive or prejudicial to the interests of the industry (Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. A.K. Roy, (1969) 3 SCC 513 ). In cases where it is felt that it will not be desirable or expedient to direct reinstatement the workman is compensated monetarily by awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement for loss of future employment." 16. The position that was held by the delinquent workman here, the circumstances in which the misconduct was committed, the nature of misconduct, and the likely consequences of reinstatement are not such as to warrant the view that reinstatement is not desirable in the larger interest or of the industry or the workman and that compensation must be awarded. The appellant employer has a large work force of tens of thousands and the consequences of reinstating the workman in the post of Assistant will not in any manner affect industrial peace. 17. We therefore do not see any justification for interfering with the order under appeal. 18. The learned single Judge has also affirmed the orders made on the computation petitions which are only consequential to the direction for reinstatement. Once it is held that reinstatement is warranted, the computation made regarding the benefits payable to the workman for the period subsequent to the date of the award cannot be said to be illegal. 19. The writ appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 20. Once it is held that reinstatement is warranted, the computation made regarding the benefits payable to the workman for the period subsequent to the date of the award cannot be said to be illegal. 19. The writ appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 20. The amount granted to the petitioner in the order made by the Labour Court in the workman's application under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which order has been challenged in the writ petition No.14781 of 1995, is Rs.2222/-. That payment was directed as a consequence to the direction given by the Labour Court for reinstatement. That writ petition also is required to be and is dismissed.