Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J.- This application has been preferred by the petitioner Employers in relation to the Management of Kiriburu Iron Ore Mines of Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL), Singhbum against the Award dated 18th January, 1994 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad in Reference No.20 of 1989, whereby and whereunder, the learned Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal as was passed against the concerned workman-Bideshi Sahu, Ex-Plumber-cum-Pipe Fitter and directed to reinstate him without back wages, but with stoppage of one increment. 2. From the facts as admitted by the parties show that on 18th March, 1986, the concerned workman used filthy language at the time of meeting with one Shri K.C. Seth, Controlling Officer of the workman in his official Chambers during office hour and abused as well as threatened him of dire consequence, as the officer marked the workman three days' absent from duty. The Workman thereafter entered the Official Chambers of Senior Executive Engineer (Civil) in a furious mood and enquired about the reason for non-grant of three days (eave. The Workman caught hold of the Neck (throat) of the said Senior Executive Engineer (Civil) and tried to hit him bodily. However, in view of the intervention of Shri S.P. Singh, the then Assistant Grade II, the concerned workman was taken out of his Office. 3. For aforesaid misconduct, a departmental enquiry was held, after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned Workman and on receipt of report, the Workman having found guilty of charges, was dismissed w.e.f. 23rd November, 1987. 4. Against the aforesaid dismissal order, the concerned Workman raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred for adjudication by the Government of India, on the following terms, vide Order No. L-26012/5/89-IR (MiSc.) dated, the 19th September, 1989. "Whether the action of the management of Kiriburu Iron Ore mines of Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL), Kiriburu in dismissing the services of Shri Bideshi Sahu Plumber-cum-Pipe Fitter w.e.f. 23.11 .87 is justified. If not, what relief is the workman entitled to ?" 5. It will be evident from the finding given by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) Dhanbad that the tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was conducted in all fairness keeping in view the principles of natural justice. If not, what relief is the workman entitled to ?" 5. It will be evident from the finding given by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) Dhanbad that the tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was conducted in all fairness keeping in view the principles of natural justice. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the charges against the Workman stood proved. 6. Though the Workman has appeared, but no counter affidavit has been filed denying the aforesaid incident nor any stand taken by the Workman that the enquiry was not fair. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the charges levelled against the Workman being grave, the workman, a Plumber-cum-Pipe Fitter having caught hold of the Neck/Throat of the Senior Executive Engineer (Civil) and having also tried to hit him bodily, there appears to be no reason as to why a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment was inflicted by the learned Tribunal in place of a major punishment of dismissal from service. 8. It is true that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to look into the quantum of punishment, but it does not mean that in the case of grave nature of charge, the Tribunal can convert the punishment into a minor punishment like stoppage of one increment in place of dismissal. Such minor punishment is also not proportionate to the gravity of charge for which major punishment was called for. 9. In this background, the Award dated 18th January, 1994 passed in Reference Case No. 20 of 1989 cannot be upheld. It is accordingly, set aside. 10. The writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order, as to costs.