Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 2. The appellant joined the services of the Ganganagar Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Hanumangarh as a skilled labour (Doubling Sider) in June, 1985 on a monthly salary of Rs. 1289.60. It is alleged that on 15.06.1992 while Shri G.L. Swami, Administrative Officer of the Mill was on round, the appellant twisted hand and slapped. In the domestic enquiry the charges were found to be proved. Thus, he was removed from service by order dated 15.06.1992. A criminal case was also registered against him. An industrial dispute was raised at the instance of the appellant. The State of Rajasthan referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court after hearing the parties found the domestic enquiry to be invalid and as such by order dated 18.03.1997 gave an opportunity to the employer to prove delinquency afresh before the Labour Court. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence the Labour Court found the charges proved against the appellant. Looking to the gravity of the serious misconduct the Labour Court refused to interfere with the penalty of removal from service. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition summarily by the impugned order. 3. It is contended by Shri. D.K. Parihar learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that on the same charges the appellant has been acquitted by the competent Court. The learned Counsel has referred to the Judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh dated 04.08.1995. It is further submitted that it is a case of no evidence inasmuch as no independent witness has been produced to establish the charge of misbehavior against the appellant. In the alternate it is submitted that the penalty of removal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Ramakant Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 1982 (45) FLR page 432. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the Judgment of the Labour Court confirmed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Ramakant Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 1982 (45) FLR page 432. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the Judgment of the Labour Court confirmed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B. Narawade reported in 2005 (3) SCC page 134. .4. We have carefully gone through the Judgment of the Labour Court. As far as the Judgment of the Judicial Magistrate acquitting the appellant is concerned, the same has not been given much credence in view of the evidence produced before the Labour Court itself . The criminal Court has acquitted the accused appellant giving him the benefit of doubt. Before the Labour Court the employer examined Shri G.L. Swami, Administrative Officer, Shri. R.K. Barath and Shri Prem Prakash. Except Shri Swami the two other witnesses are not of the incident. However, the Labour Court found that there was no reason to discredit the testimony of Shri G.L. Swami. Shri G.L. Swami stated that when he reached to the training cell during usual round the appellant abused him, caught hold the hand, twisted the same and slapped him. It was contended before the Labour Court that none of the trainees who were present at the time of the incident has been produced. The contention has been rightly rejected on the ground that the trainees were no more in the employment of the respondent at the time when the evidence was to be recorded before the Labour Court and as such it was not possible to produce them. The Labour Court was of the view that in absence of any specific allegation of mala .fide there was absolutely no reason to foist a false case against the appellant. The incident was immediately reported to the Managing Director by way of written complaint Exhibit M-26. Thus, the statement of Shri Swami is corroborated by the complaint Exhibit M-26. On the same day Shri R.K. Barath conducted the enquiry and found the charges proved. On careful consideration, we find no justified reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge. .5. Thus, the statement of Shri Swami is corroborated by the complaint Exhibit M-26. On the same day Shri R.K. Barath conducted the enquiry and found the charges proved. On careful consideration, we find no justified reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge. .5. We have also carefully gone through the decision of the Apex Court in Ramakant Mishras case cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In the said case the workman had unblemished record of 14 years of service. In those peculiar circumstances it was considered that the penalty awarded was not commensurated with the gravity of offence charged. In the instant case the appellant was employed in the year 1985. During the seven years of service at least six cases were framed against him of the charge of misconduct. He has been repeatedly given warning to improve his behaviour. The learned Labour Court has dealt with all those cases in detail. .6. Thus, the Ramakant Mishras case does not advance the case of the appellant. 7. The Apex Court in Orissa Cement Ltd. vs. Adikanda Sahu, reported in 1960 (1) LLJ page 518 noticing the filthy language used by the workman held that such a person cannot be kept in service. It was further held that the employer was justified in dismissing the employee who was capable of indecent conduct. The Apex Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (Supra), after referring to number of decisions observed in Para 20 as follows:- “It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management where the workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various Judgment s of this Court referred to hereinabove and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various Judgment s of this Court referred to hereinabove and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11-A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such factor existing, the Labour Court cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the punishment. As noticed hereinabove at least in two of the cases cited before us i.e., Orissa Cement Ltd. and New Shorrock Mills this Court held: “Punishment of dismissal for using of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate.” In this case all the forums below have held that the language used by the workman was filthy. We too are of the opinion that the language used by the workman is such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilised society. Use of such abusive language against a superior officer, that too not once but twice, in the presence of his subordinates cannot be termed to be an indiscipline calling for lesser punishment in the absence of any extenuating factor referred to hereinabove.” 8. In the instant Case the appellant has committed a serious misconduct in twisting the hand of the Administrative Officer and giving him slap while he was on duty. The act of the appellant is serious and unpardonable. In such cases the only punishment can be of removal from service. No interference is warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the award of the learned Labour Court. 9. Consequently, the special appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.