P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) BY filing this petition, which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - Corporation has challenged the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Nadiad dated 4. 6. 1987 in Reference L. C. N. No. 333 of 1988 having old number no. 1232 of 1981. The respondent workman was serving as a conductor in the S. T. Corporation at its Borsad Depot. The respondent was subjected to departmental proceedings on the ground of misappropriation of certain amount. By order dated 27. 3. 1979, he was dismissed from service in view of the aforesaid misconduct. The concerned workman, thereafter, raised industrial dispute. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nadiad referred the said matter to the Labour Judge, Nadiad for adjudication under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court ultimately allowed the reference partly and by setting aside the removal order, the Labour Court passed an order of reinstatement without backwages. The Labour Court also inflicted penalty of withholding of 2 increments for a period of 2 years. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned in this petition at the instance of the S. T. Corporation. ( 2 ) THIS Court while admitting the matter on 1. 5. 1989 stayed the reinstatement order subject to compliance of Section 17 (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 3 ) MR. RAVAL, Ld. Advocate for the petitioner Corporation submitted that the alleged misconduct of misappropriation of amount is proved against the workman. He submitted that even in the past, the concerned workman was subjected to departmental proceedings for 46 times and he was subjected to penalty of fine from time to time. He submitted that when such a serious misconduct of misappropriation of amount is proved against the respondent workman, it is not a case wherein leniency is required to be shown by the Labour Court by resorting to the powers conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes act. He submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and especially, when it is an admitted fact that the departmental inquiry was held against the workman, it is not a case where any order of reinstatement was required to be passed by the Labour Court. The respondent, though, served, has not appeared in this matter. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Raval, Ld. The respondent, though, served, has not appeared in this matter. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Raval, Ld. Advocate and I have gone through the award of the Labour Court. The Labour Court has considered the factual aspect of the matter in connection with the aforesaid misconduct attributed to the respondent. In Para 3 of the award, it is observed by the Labour Court that the workman has withdrawn his objections regarding challenge to the validity of the departmental inquiry by giving purshis at Exh. 21 and has prayed for reduction in penalty. The Labour Court has found in Para 3 that since the concerned workman has admitted his guilt, it is proved that he has misappropriated Rs. 6. 00. Not only that, after verifying the tickets alongwith the tray, it is found that the workman has misappropriated Rs. 120. 00 for his personal use. The Labour Court has observed that Rs. 120. 00 has been re-deposited by the petitioner later on. The Labour Court has in terms observed that it is a serious misconduct and the concerned workman has even committed temporary misappropriation of Rs. 120. 00. The Labour Court has also found that looking to the past service record of the petitioner, it is found that he was subjected to departmental proceedings for 46 times and he was subjected to fine on all occasions. The Labour Court has repeatedly reiterated at various places in the said para tha the misconduct is of a serious nature. The Labour Court has also considered the question of misappropriation of the amount by considering Exh. 25 in which particulars of such misappropriation are given. However, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that considering the long service rendered by the workman and considering his age, the order of punishment is required to be interfered with. The Labour Court has also found that more than 7 years have passed since the dismissal order is passed against him which is dated 27. 3. 1979. The Labour Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that it is just and proper to give one more opportunity to him so that he can improve his character. On the aforesaid ground, the Labour Court interfered with the order of penalty and substituted the penalty of dismissal to that of withholding 2 increments for a period of 2 years. 1979. The Labour Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that it is just and proper to give one more opportunity to him so that he can improve his character. On the aforesaid ground, the Labour Court interfered with the order of penalty and substituted the penalty of dismissal to that of withholding 2 increments for a period of 2 years. ( 5 ) IN my view, the order of the Labour Court suffers from serious infirmity and illegality. It is required to be noted that the Labour Court itself has found that misconduct in question is a serious misconduct. The Labour Court has also found that the fact about misappropriating the amount is an admitted fact and in fact, the workman himself has admitted that he has misappropriated the said sum. The Labour Court has also found that even in the past, the concerned workman was subjected to departmental proceedings and was subjected to penalty for 46 times. In view of this clear cut finding arrived at by the Labour Court, it is difficult to appreciate the further reasoning given by the Labour Court for interfering with the said penalty by resorting to Section 11-A of the I. D. Act. This Court has repeatedly said that Section 11-A powers are not required to be exercised in a mechanical and casual manner. It is not a mandate that in every case, the Labour Court is bound to exercise powers under Section 11-A. In a given case, if the Court is of the opinion that the penalty is disproportionate or shocking, the Court can certainly resort to such provision. In the instant case, when the Labour Court itself has found that the misconduct of the workman is serious in nature, yet, the said power has been exercised mainly on the ground that the removal order is passed about 7 years back and the concerned workman is aged 48 years. In my view, both these points are absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of considering the matter under Section 11-A of the I. D. Act. Age and other criterion may be relevant while considering the case under Section 11-A provided the misconduct in question is such by which it can be inferred that it is an extreme penalty as compared to the gravity of the charges levelled and proved against a workman. Age and other criterion may be relevant while considering the case under Section 11-A provided the misconduct in question is such by which it can be inferred that it is an extreme penalty as compared to the gravity of the charges levelled and proved against a workman. If a charge of a serious nature like misappropriation is proved against the concerned workman and the employer has dismissed or removed an employee in view of such serious charges proved against the employee, the age or length of service itself cannot be considered as a relevant criterion for setting aside such penalty order. The Court first has to see the nature of misconduct which is proved. If an offence is of a serious nature then even if a workman has put in number of years in service or his age factor itself cannot be taken as basis for interfering with the order of the Management which has been done by the Labour Court in the instant case. In Para 3 of the award, the Labour Court has repeated at various places that the misconduct in the instant case is of a very serious nature. After observing the same, the Labour Court interfered with the penalty order on the ground that more than 7 years have passed since the workman is dismissed and that itself is a sufficient penalty. It is difficult to swallow the reasoning given by the Labour Court. It is hoped that the Labour Court will consider the question of exercise of powers under Section 11-A appropriately by considering the facts and circumstances of each case, without resorting to it in a casual routine manner. Reading the provision of Section 11-A, it is clear that in a given case when the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. Before substituting the penalty imposed by the employer, the Labour Court while exercising powers under Section 11-A, therefore, has to set aside the dismissal or discharge order if it is satisfied that such order was not justified and thereafter it can pass appropriate order of reinstatement and even can impose any other penalty. In the instant case, the Labour Court has not even recorded its finding that the order of dismissal or removal or discharge is bad in many manner. Without recording such finding, the Court has no jurisdiction to straightaway pass an order of reinstatement. Considering all these aspects of the matter, in my view, the order of the Labour Court is absolutely unsustainable and accordingly, the impugned order of the Labour Court is set aside. The petition is allowed. Rule made absolute with no order to costs. It is clarified that in view of the interim order of this Court, if any benefit of Section 17-B is given to the respondent workman pending this petition, the respondent is not required to repay the said amount to the Management in view of the clear cut provisions in this behalf under Section 17-B of the I. D. Act. .