Markandey Katju, C.J.: This writ appeal is filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge, dated 20.6.2003. 2. We have carefully perused the impugned order and heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The writ-petitioner/second respondent herein was removed from service. The charge levelled against the workman was that he went on a hunger-strike on account of his grievance that he was denied the increment to which he was legitimately entitled to. The order of removal from service was challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour Court set aside the order of removal holding that the punishment was disproportionate to the nature of delinquency and directed the reinstatement without backwages. The award of the Labour Court was challenged by the Management by filing the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge, upholding the order of the Labour Court. We agree with the learned single Judge that such an act of the workman cannot justify the punishment of removal from service. 4. In a democracy, people must be allowed to let out steam. It may be in different forms and in different ways such as hunger-strike, peaceful demonstrations, etc. and particularly in the industrial atmosphere, the managements must realise that if the workmen are not allowed to let out their steam in such a non-violent manner, it is very likely that the pressure of the steam will mount-up and the work force will let out their steam in a violent manner, which is not congenial for industrial peace. Showing protest and resentment through non-violence is always better than by violence. We are of the view that the punishment awarded by the Management was too harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the charge of delinquency of the workman, who merely went on a hunger-strike on account of his grievance of denial of increment. 5. We see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Connected W.A.M.P.No.198 of 2005 is closed.