ORDER : K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—The petitioner/Management seeks for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the award of the first respondent/Labour Court, Salem in I.D. No.74 of 1993 dated 2.1.1995. 2. According to the petitioner/Management, the petitioner factory was involved in the manufacture of Silicon Metal. The factory was set up in the year 1996 having its own Certified Standing Orders. The second respondent, who was employed as a skilled worker, was chargesheeted for his behaviour on 26.6.1992. He and one Venkatesan, a trade apprentice were working in the general shift. The said Venkatesn after finishing his work at about 4.45 p.m. is said to have placed a level transmitter under a work table. He was directed by the Engineering Assistant to clean the diagphram. The second respondent, however, advised Venkatesan that the transmitter should not be placed under the table and asked him to put it in the shelf. As Venkatesan did not immediately respond, the second respondent was enraged at the reaction of Venkatesan. The second respondent/Employee told the apprentice that he could not tolerate an apprentice staring at him, to which Venkatesan also is alleged to have responded by telling him that the second respondent should behave in that manner. It is further alleged that the employee thereupon insulted Venkatesan and threatened him that he would slap him so hard that his eyes would get back to the other side. Venkatesan took exception to the offensive language. Immediately, the employee slapped Venkatesan on his cheek. The Engineering Assistant advised the second respondent not to behave like that towards an apprentice. Even then, the second respondent continued to slap Venkatesan thrice. It is further alleged that on the same evening, the second respondent went to Venkatesan's house, told his brother that Venkatesan had misbehaved, that he gave him a thrashing and that if he made any compliant, he would not bother about it. 3. On 27.6.1992 a charge sheet was issued charging the second respondent with misconduct under Standing Order 24(an). He refused to receive it and hence, another charge sheet was issued on 27.6.1992 for refusal to receive the communication from the company and thereafter, the charge sheet was pasted on the notice board. 4. A domestic enquiry was held. The second respondent fully participated in the enquiry. He refused to receive it and hence, another charge sheet was issued on 27.6.1992 for refusal to receive the communication from the company and thereafter, the charge sheet was pasted on the notice board. 4. A domestic enquiry was held. The second respondent fully participated in the enquiry. On 4.9.1992, the enquiry officer by his report held that the charges against the second respondent were proved. A second show cause notice was issued on 30.9.1992 proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. As the reply by the second respondent was unsatisfactory, he was dismissed from service by order dated 12.11.1992. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. The Management marked Exs.M1 to M19 and the employee did not lead any evidence. 5. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings of the enquiry officer were justified. However, as regards the punishment, the Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissal was excessive and that the loss of wages already suffered for 25 months was by itself an adequate punishment. With the result, the employee was directed to be reinstated in service without back wages but with continuity of service. Hence the above Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Management streneously contended that the nature of misconduct of the employee was grave and caused adverse effect on the maintenance of discipline in the unit. Therefore, the misconduct has to be strictly viewed, failing which it would amount to encouraging indiscipline, resulting in industrial unrest. The learned counsel further contends that the power of the Labour Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment u/s 11-A of the I.D. Act was limited and when once the enquiry has been found to be proved, the Labour Court cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment. 7. Reliance is placed on the judgment of N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J in N. Karunakaran vs. (1) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras, (2) Manager of Textool Company, Ganapthy, Coimbatore 2000 (1) L.L.N.299. 7. Reliance is placed on the judgment of N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J in N. Karunakaran vs. (1) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras, (2) Manager of Textool Company, Ganapthy, Coimbatore 2000 (1) L.L.N.299. In that case, there was an altercation between the employees and the Management held that the acts of disorderly behaviour inside the factory and assaulting a co-workman in the factory premises during office hours represent that there was no value either for righteousness or for the orderly rule of conduct in the factory and such a misconduct would not pass the test of a reasonable man in a work spot during working hours and more so, when no provocation was established for the misconduct. The learned Judge relying on the judgment in Dharmapuri District Co-Operative Sugar Mills vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore 1997 (1) L.L.N. 391 observed that Court should not entertain a misplaced sympathy towards a workman. Reference is also made to the judgment in Ashok Leyland Ltd., v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court 1999 (1) L.L.N. 240. Reference is made to the observation that the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court could interfere with the quantum of punishment only when it was satisfied that the punishment imposed by the Management was highly disproportionate to the degree of the guilt of the concerned. The Labour Court must give proper and acceptable reasons. 8. Learned counsel for the second respondent, however, seeks to justify the facts of the present case and distinguish the facts involved in the two judgments as cited above by the Management. 9. Further, learned counsel for the second respondent contends that there is no comparison with the facts of the present case considering that the employee was provoked by the conduct of the apprentice in not obeying his instructions. Therefore, the Labour Court in exercising by its discretion found that the punishment was disproportionate to the nature of the delinquency. 10. In reply, learned counsel for the Management contended that the conduct of the employee has to be viewed seriously and even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the order of dismissal was not justified, an order of compensation could be granted instead of directions to reinstate the employee who is likely to cause embarrassment to the Management. 10. In reply, learned counsel for the Management contended that the conduct of the employee has to be viewed seriously and even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the order of dismissal was not justified, an order of compensation could be granted instead of directions to reinstate the employee who is likely to cause embarrassment to the Management. Learned counsel further contended that the employee was drawing Rs.2,500/- per month as last drawn salary and till now he has been paid a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-. 11. I have considered the submissions of both sides. 12. It is true that the charges against the petitioner were held to be proved both in the domestic enquiry and by the Labour Court. The misconduct alleged against the delinquent has been explained above and he was charge- sheeted for having behaved in a violent manner with a co-employee by having slapped him thrice because he did not comply with his instructions. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the punishment of dismissal is warranted and whether the Labour Court having found that the enquiry was conducted fairly and properly and also having agreed with the finding in the enquiry, could have interfered with the quantum of punishment? 13. It is true that the conduct of the employee thus amounts to a gross misconduct of indiscipline. At the same time, the circumstances under which the employee was provoked to behave in the said manner should also be appreciated in order to decide the proper quantum of punishment. It is not disputed by the Management that the proper place to keep the transmitter was not under the table, and it should be kept in the shelf. This was, however, not done by the apprentice. Inspite of the second respondent's asking him to keep the transmitter in the shelf, he did not comply with the said instructions but appears to have stared back at the second respondent. Certainly, the second respondent had no business to slap the apprentice even though he might have been provoked. Action was rightly taken against him for indisciplined behaviour but the facts and circumstances stated above would disclose that it was not as though the second respondent behaved in that manner without any provocation at all. There was some provocation. However, the employee has taken law into his hands which ought not to have done. 14. Action was rightly taken against him for indisciplined behaviour but the facts and circumstances stated above would disclose that it was not as though the second respondent behaved in that manner without any provocation at all. There was some provocation. However, the employee has taken law into his hands which ought not to have done. 14. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner viz., 2000 (1) LLN 299, is a case where the learned Judge has recorded a specific finding that there was absolutely no evidence of any provocation for the unruly behaviour of the delinquent. 15. In the case reported in 1999 (1) LLJ 788 cited above, the delinquent hit a canteen contractor. He had gone to the canteen with a group of employees and had assaulted the canteen contractor without any provocation. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement was held by the learned Judge to be perverse and did not justify entertaining "misplaced sympathy" towards the workman. 16. On the facts of the present case, I am inclined to hold that the though there was no justification for the behaviour of the employee, the facts disclose that there was some sudden provocation arising out of the refusal on the part of the apprentice in not complying with an instruction which was given by the delinquent only in the interest of administration viz., that the transmitter should be kept in the shelf and not under the table. His instruction to the apprentice was only in the interest of the establishment which was not complied with by the apprentice. 17. Reliance was placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd., Madras (represented by Personnel Manager) vs. 1. R. Venkatraman, (2) First Additional Labour Court, Madras 1990 (1) LLN 710. In that case, service of the delinquent was terminated for slapping the chargehand while on duty. The Labour Court upheld the propriety of disciplinary action on merits. However, with regard to the question of punishment, the Labour Court chose to interfere and directed reinstatement without back wages. R. Venkatraman, (2) First Additional Labour Court, Madras 1990 (1) LLN 710. In that case, service of the delinquent was terminated for slapping the chargehand while on duty. The Labour Court upheld the propriety of disciplinary action on merits. However, with regard to the question of punishment, the Labour Court chose to interfere and directed reinstatement without back wages. On analysis of the facts and circumstances, the Division Bench held that the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the punishment was disproportionate only after a detailed discussion of the facts and circumstances and therefore, the Labour Court cannot be stated to have exercised discretion in an injudicious manner. 18. Apart from the circumstances under which the delinquent had committed misconduct as stated above, a perusal of the award of the Labour Court also discloses that there is proper discussion by the Labour Court in assessing the quantum of punishment. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that there was no prior enmity between the delinquent and the apprentice; that the delinquent was provoked by the conduct of the apprentice in not complying with his instructions even after instructing him more than three times that the transmitter should be kept only in the shelf and not below the table, and the apprentice did not immediately comply with the instructions. This was followed by some wordy altercation and only later, the delinquent had slapped the apprentice. Therefore, the Labour Court had given adequate reasons for holding that the punishment was disproportionate. There is no justification for interference by this Court in the quantum of punishment. The Labour Court had rightly held that he was not entitled to the wages during the period when he was not functioning and had ordered reinstatement of the employee without back wages. 19. I am also unable to sustain the claim of the Management that instead of reinstatement, compensation can be awarded. The relief of compensation cannot be accepted in each and every case wherever the Management feels that the employee should not be put back in service. Such relief can be granted only in cases where continuing the employee in service is likely to cause friction or indiscipline among the employees of the company. This is not a case of the employee having assaulted any superior or instigating any violence or indiscipline or causing damage to property. Such relief can be granted only in cases where continuing the employee in service is likely to cause friction or indiscipline among the employees of the company. This is not a case of the employee having assaulted any superior or instigating any violence or indiscipline or causing damage to property. The delinquent is involved in a single instance of violent behaviour with a co-employee that too under some provocation. There is no question of any embarrassment being caused to the Management in reinstating the second respondent in service. 20. With the result, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.