Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. Original Petition was filed by the appellant herein challenging Ext.P7 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No.18 of 1993. Industrial Tribunal though held that the enquiry was conducted fully in compliance with the principles of natural justice and that the findings of the enquiry officer were proper and valid and supported by legal evidence, took the view that punishment imposed on the workman is disproportionate with the gravity of the charges leveled against her and hence ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and all other benefits but withholding full wages for a period of one year. Learned single judge found no infirmity in the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition against which this writ appeal has been preferred. 2. Sri Antony Dominic, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed on the delinquent workman after having found that the enquiry was properly conducted and the findings of the enquiry officer were proper and valid and supported by legal evidence. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has completely misunderstood the scope and ambit of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and committed an error in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Management on the basis of the domestic enquiry. Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the apex court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy and others (2005 (2) SCC 481), Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B. Narawade (2005 (3) SCC 134) and M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma (2005 (2) SCC 401) and contended that the Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned singe judge have not properly appreciated and understood the scope of section 11-A and have committed error in holding that the punishment is disproportionate with the gravity of the charges leveled against the delinquent workman. Decisions of the apex court in Workmen of firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. Vs. Management (1973 (1) L.L.J. 278), C.M.C. Hospital Employees’ Union and another Vs. C.M.C. Velloor Assn. & Others (1988 (1) L.L.J. 268), India Marine Service vs. Their Workman (1963 (1) L.L.J. 122), Burn & Co., Ltd. Vs. Workman (1970 (2) L.L.J. 56) and Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Workers’ Union (1961) (2) L.L.J. 686) were also relied on. C.M.C. Velloor Assn. & Others (1988 (1) L.L.J. 268), India Marine Service vs. Their Workman (1963 (1) L.L.J. 122), Burn & Co., Ltd. Vs. Workman (1970 (2) L.L.J. 56) and Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Workers’ Union (1961) (2) L.L.J. 686) were also relied on. Counsel for the workman Sri Gopakumaran Nair contended that the Industrial Tribunal has rightly interfered with the order passed by the Management on the basis of the enquiry report and other attendant circumstances. 3. Second respondent workman was appointed as Peon at the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Plant from 20.11.1989. She was on probation for a period of twelve months. She was charge sheeted on 15.5.1990 even before the completion of the period of probation on various charges which fall under different clauses of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. Charges leveled against the workman are extracted below. 1. At the time of your interview for the post of Peon held on 2.12.88 at Ernakulam installation, you were briefed on the nature of jobs to be performed by Peons in our Corporation which includes, among other jobs, visits to the Post Officer. You affirmed that you would be able to carry out all the duties of a Peon. Once again, on 31.10.1989, when your reported to Sr. Installation Manager, Ernakulam for a medical examination, you were told in very clear terms that besides the other works required to be carried out by you as a Peon, you will be required to go to Post Officer every day. You once against reaffirmed your willingness to work as a Peon under all these conditions. Only based on your assurances to do all the normal works to be carried out by a Peon, you were sent for the medical examination and thereafter appointed as a Peon in the Corporation. 2. It is reported against you that a) Despite our several verbal and written advices to you on the matter, you refused to go to the Post Office on 21.11.89, 25.11.89, 11.12.89, 4.1.90, 6.1.90, 7.1.90, 8.1.90, 9.1.90 & 10.1.90 and carry out the work assigned to you. b) You refused to mail the DTNs given to you by Sri P.N. Sasikumar, Clerk Typist on 18.4.90. When queried by Sri. K. Ramachandran DO you said you will mail them only the next day. b) You refused to mail the DTNs given to you by Sri P.N. Sasikumar, Clerk Typist on 18.4.90. When queried by Sri. K. Ramachandran DO you said you will mail them only the next day. It was also learnt that on the same day, instead of going to the post office by yourself for mailing letters, you handed over the letters to be mailed to the Postman who come to the plant to hand over registered letters. c) It is also reported against you that you are rude to your co-workers and use rude and intemperate language not fit to be used in office. For instance, you used the following language against Sri. B. Neeliyath, Dy. Manager, Trivandrum LPG on 20.3.1990 in the presence of D.Ds. Sri. K. Ramachandran and Sri Chinmay S. Panth. “You have not appointed me, so why are you giving letters to me? “My uncles are I.G. S.P. S.I. They will break your legs.” “Mr. Madhu, RSP Leader promised that he will break your spine and put you in hospital. Only because of me you are surviving.” “Why are you not doing the jobs of a Peon and Clerk and asking me to do? “I will deal with people in Bombay and Madras and not with you.” d) Similarly on 2.5.90 when Sri. K. Ramachandran DD asked you to go to the plaint to hand over a slip to Sri Saji George DD you reached by saying in Malayalam “I will beat you with my chappals.” e) On 3.5.1990 when the Sub Inspector of Police was in the Dy. Manager’s room speaking to him regarding the workman’s strike, you walked in with the cool drinks and told the police officer in Malayalam regarding Sri B. Neeliyath “Take this fellow into custody as he is a corrupt fellow”. f) In connection with the observance of Fire Prevention week when a questionnaire was issued to you as well as other employees by Sri S.V. Byju on 12.4.90 to enable him assess your knowledge on Safety and Fire Prevention, you told him that you are not supposed to know these things and that your work was only to go to the post office. When Sri Byju requested you to leave the rook you tore up the question paper and walked out. When Sri Byju requested you to leave the rook you tore up the question paper and walked out. You attended the post lunch session and when the responses from the other workmen were being evaluated, you said loudly that anyone who studied in school will frame better questions. g) On 12.5.90 you walked into the office with a stick and behaved in an unruly manner by brandishing the stick at your co-workers. You also walked into the room of Sri. Vijayakumar, Steno Clerk, and told him, “This Balakrishnan has killed one Sukumaran and he is a criminal. So do not get to his cabin, be careful.” 3. The above-alleged acts of yours, if proved, would constitute misconduct under the following provisions of the Standing Orders of the Corporation, applicable to you. Clause 29.1.4: … riotous, disorderly … behaviour during working hours. Clause 29.1.6: … Use of abusive language, threatening … within the premises of the establishment against any … person authorized to work in the premises of the establishment … threat of assault within the premises of the establishment on any person authorized to work on the premises of the establishment. Clause 29.1.20: Willful insubordination or disobedience whether or not in combination with another of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. Clause 29.1.21: Habitual neglect of work … Clause 29.1.35: Malicious or false allegations against the Corporation, its officials… Management conducted a detailed enquiry into the charges levelled against the workman and the charges were found conclusively proved and the enquiry officer ordered as follows: I therefore find her guilty of misconduct under the following clauses of the Standing Orders of the Corporation applicable to her. Clause 29.1.24: Riotous, disorderly behaviour during working hours. Clause 29.1.6: Use of abusive language, threatening within the premises of the establishment against any person authorized to work in the premises of the establishment … threat of assault within the premises of the establishment on any person authorized to work on the premises of the establishment. Clause 29.1.20: Willful insubordination or disobedience whether or not in combination with another of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. 9 Clause 29.1.21: Habitual neglect of work. Clause 29.1.35: Malicious or false allegations against the Corporation Officials. Workman took up the matter before the Industrial Tribunal. Clause 29.1.20: Willful insubordination or disobedience whether or not in combination with another of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. 9 Clause 29.1.21: Habitual neglect of work. Clause 29.1.35: Malicious or false allegations against the Corporation Officials. Workman took up the matter before the Industrial Tribunal. Tribunal appointed father of the workman in his capacity as the guardian to prosecute the matter since it was found that the workman was mentally ill. 4. We may indicate the Tribunal itself has found that the workman had committed misconduct during the probation period and misconducts proved are mainly use of abusive words and insubordination. We may extract the finding of the Tribunal, which reads as follows: “It is true that she has committed the misconducts during the probation period itself. But the misconducts now proved are mainly use of abusive words and insubordination. There was no allegation of any violent acts or beating other employees or officers. The insubordination or disobedience was mainly not going to the post office. The misconducts in question cannot be stated as grave enough warranting a punishment of dismissal. I have absolutely no doubt that the punishment inflicted is too severe and deserve to be interfered with this Tribunal. No doubt due to the abnormal behaviour and unstable mental condition of the workman this tribunal has appointed her father as court guardian for conducting the case. But there is remarkable change in her behaviour before this Tribunal at present which shows that improvement in her mental condition and she will be mentally stable very soon.” Tribunal, in our view, has committed an error in taking note of the subsequent change of behaviour of the delinquent workman while she was before the Tribunal. Tribunal has categorically found that the findings of the enquiry officer were proper and valid and supported by legal evidence. Subsequent change of behaviour or attitude of the delinquent workman is of no consequence and that is not a ground to determine whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate with gravity of the offences leveled against the delinquent workman. Tribunal, in our view, has clearly misdirected itself in reaching the above conclusion. 5. The scope of Section 11A was also not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came up for consideration before the apex court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Tribunal, in our view, has clearly misdirected itself in reaching the above conclusion. 5. The scope of Section 11A was also not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came up for consideration before the apex court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Narawade (2005 (3) SCC 134) and the court held as follows: 20. 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 judgments 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 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 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 civilized society. Use of such abusive language against a superior officer, that too not subordinates cannot be termed to be an indiscipline calling for lesser punishment in the absence of any extenuating factor referred to hereinabove.” The apex court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy (2005 (2) SCC 481) took the view that once the Management has lost confidence in the respondent the question of exercising its jurisdiction under section 11-A to alter or reduce the punishment does not arise. We may also notice in the recent decision in M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma (2005 (3) SCC 401) the apex court reminded of the discipline at the work place as a sine qua non for the efficient working of the organization. We are of the view the principle laid down by the apex court in the above decisions would squarely apply to the facts of this case. This is a case where tribunal has already found that the findings of the enquiry officer are proper and valid and supported by legal evidence. If that be so, we fail to see how the Tribunal could interfere with the punishment imposed by the Management. Workman either due to her mental condition or otherwise has used intemperate language against Deputy Manager in the presence of other officers, that too when she was on probation. Use of such type of language will undermine the discipline of the institution. We are not prepared to say that the decision taken by the management to dismiss the workman from service is excessive or not commensurate with the gravity of charges leveled against her. We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single judge and the award passed by the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.