Judgment Arvind Kumar, J. 1. These two sets of cases are cross petitions filed by Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as the Management) and its workman Chander Shekhar (hereinafter referred as the Workman), against the Award dated 18.5.1984 passed by the Labour Court. Since both the writ petitions are filed against a common award, I propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment. 2. The broad facts of the case as emerged out from the petitions as also narrated by learned Counsel for the parties are that, the Workman was appointed as Assistant Account in the Management on 1.5.1970 (though, as per Workman the date of appointment is 26.2.1970). The problem started when the Workman was transferred to Gurdaspur, but refused to join on the seat when asked by A.E. and questioned the identity of A.E. Gurdaspur. He left the office on 28.6.1974 without the prior permission of A.E. Gurdaspur. Resultantly the workman was placed under suspension on 18.7.1974 and accordingly he was served with a charge sheet containing allegations of insubordination, in discipline as the workman do not comply with the orders of competent authority and left the station without prior permission of the competent authority and remained willful absent from duties. On 25.2.1976, the Workman was dismissed from service which gave rise to an industrial dispute and the appropriate government, who initially refused to make reference to the dispute on 24.3.1977, vide order dated 16.8.1977 referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the Act). The reference was contested by the management. Both the parties led their respective evidence and the Labour Court. 3. The Labour Court vide the impugned award held the workman guilty of insubordination and at the same time it observed that the same was not malicious and willful and the workman had done so under mistaken notion of his relationship with Union of employees as he was its General Secretary at that time. 4. The Labour Court with regard to the charges against the workman of leaving the station without prior permission of the competent authority and remaining willful absent without leave, has given findings in favour of the workman and held that the Management has failed to substantiate the same. 5. 4. The Labour Court with regard to the charges against the workman of leaving the station without prior permission of the competent authority and remaining willful absent without leave, has given findings in favour of the workman and held that the Management has failed to substantiate the same. 5. Having arrived to the aforesaid conclusion, the Labour Court has further held that the punishment of dismissal from service, awarded to the workman, in respect of the lapses for which it was been found guilty is disproportionate and accordingly set aside the same and directed his reinstatement in service with all benefits of its continuity, but withheld half of his wages. Hence, the present writ petitions. 6. The management has assailed the impugned award dated 18.5.1984 on the premises that a proper and legal departmental enquiry was held against the workman on the allegations of mis-conduct, insubordination and remaining willful absent from duty, which were proved and ultimately his dismissal order was rightly passed; the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter until and unless the question with regard to illegality or invalidity of the enquiry proceedings is decided, the burden of which was on the workman himself; the workman is not entitled to any back wages because admittedly he was gainfully employed during the period he remained dismissed from service and that the income of the workman from 22.10.1981 to 18.5.1984 has not been considered while calculating the income of Rs. 9333/- of the workman. 7. On the other hand, the stand of the workman while laying challenge to the impugned award is that once his dismissal from service is found unjustified, he is entitled to full back wages, but he has been only granted half of the back wages without any sufficient cause; the management has failed to prove that the workman was gainfully employed during the period he remained out of service. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with the assistance rendered by them. I have gone through the paper book. 9. Learned Counsel for the workman has argued that upon the re-instatement of the workman, he is entitled for full back wages. On the contrary, counsel for the management has argued that the workman was rightly dismissed after a departmental enquiry on account of misconduct, insubordination and absence from duty. I have gone through the paper book. 9. Learned Counsel for the workman has argued that upon the re-instatement of the workman, he is entitled for full back wages. On the contrary, counsel for the management has argued that the workman was rightly dismissed after a departmental enquiry on account of misconduct, insubordination and absence from duty. It has also been argued that the workman was gainfully employed and he is not entitled to any back wages. The arguments have been scanned. 10. The trouble had started when the workman, who was Assistant Account was transferred from Ludhiana to Gurdaspur and was asked to join as Accountant-cum-Cashier, in place of N.S. Randhawa, by Gian Singh, Assistant Engineer, to which he refused and also questioned the identity of said Gian Singh and then he left on 28.6.1974 without the permission of Assistant Engineer, Gurdaspur to attend the meeting of the Union at Ludhiana and submitted leave application from 29.6.1974 to 2.7.1974 and then applied for extension of leave on 4.7.1974, 8.7.1974 and then up to 19.7.1974. The workman was placed under suspension and charge-sheeted on account of misconduct, insubordination and absence from duty, during adjudication, he was proceeded ex-parte and ultimately dismissed from service on 25.2.1976. A bare perusal of the impugned award shows that both the parties had led evidence and the Labour Court had dealt with each charge separately. While dealing with the charge against the workman of leaving the station without permission and remaining willfully absence without leave, the Labour Court has found that there is a evidence that the leave applications of the workman were sent and duly entered in the receipt register. The Labour Court in paras 28 and 29 of the award has dealt with his aspect of the matter and the relevant portion thereof read as under: ... It is apparent that the management took the hasty action of placing the workman under suspension without rejecting his request for the grant of leave of its extension and communicating it to him with the direction that he should resume the charge. This tends to corroborate the allegations made by the workman that the management was prejudiced because of his trade union activities being discharged by him as Secretary. This tends to corroborate the allegations made by the workman that the management was prejudiced because of his trade union activities being discharged by him as Secretary. In this connection it will be relevant to refer to order 20 of the standing order, regulating the service conditions of the employee of the corporation which requires the authority concerned to pass the orders on the leave application without delay and always before leave applied for is to commence and in the alternative it should be presumed that leave applied for has been sanctioned to the workman. In view of the said provision the workman could in fact presume that leave applied for by him had been granted and the same applies to the request for extension for such leave. The workman produced Photostat copy of the application dated 20th June, 1974 whereby he had sought the permission of the Assistant Engineer to leave the station of going to Ludhiana and the endorsement made there under shows its receipt for the office. The management has withheld the application so presented. This application and the endorsement made thereon by the office clearly corroborate that he had submitted to the authority of the Assistant Engineer and sought his permission to leave the station on 20th and not 28th as deposed by Shri Gian Singh Entry in the attendance register also supports his departure on 29th. In fact by his application Ex.P-45 dated 21st June, 1974 the workman had informed the Assistant Engineer that he will be attending a meeting of the executive of the union on 1st July, 1974 at Ludhiana and had requested him to treat as on duty for the said date. No order was passed by Shri Gian Singh on his said request. This circumstance also shows that the workman had no intention to willfully absent from his duty from Gurdaspur. 29. The management has, therefore, failed to substantiate its charge that the workman had left headquarters without permission and willfully absented without leave. 11. A bare perusal of the said findings of Labour Court shows that it had applied its mind before coming to the said conclusions. The Labour Court though has opined that the act of workman is of insubordination, but observed that since it was not malicious and willful, the extreme penalty of dismissal is grossly disproportionate and substituted it with reinstatement alongwith 50% back wags. The Labour Court though has opined that the act of workman is of insubordination, but observed that since it was not malicious and willful, the extreme penalty of dismissal is grossly disproportionate and substituted it with reinstatement alongwith 50% back wags. The Labour Court, in this way, has exercised the powers under Section 11-A of the Act, substituting the punishment awarded to the workman. Under Section 11-A of the Act, the Tribunal is empowered to appreciate the evidence on record as well as the evidence led in the departmental enquiry against the delinquent and can give its own findings replacing the findings given by the authority in the disciplinary proceedings against such delinquent. I am of the opinion that in such circumstances the Labour Court was right in discussing the issue before it and was right in coming to the conclusion that the punishment itself is disproportionate and was right in substituting such an order of dismissal. This aspect has been examined by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Workman of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Management and Ors. In para 37 of the said judgment, the Hon ble Supreme Court has made certain important and relevant observations, which are as under: 37. That is why, according to us, Section 11-A now gives full power to the Tribunal to go into the evidence and satisfy itself on both these points. Now the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and come to its conclusion ensures to it when it has to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it in which an employer relies on findings recorded by him in a domestic enquiry. Such a power to appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion about the guilt or otherwise was always recognised in a Tribunal when it was deciding a dispute on the basis of evidence adduced before it for the first time. Both categories are now put on a par by Section 11-A. 12. Therefore, in view of the above, the submission made by the counsel for the management that the Tribunal cannot appraise the evidence cannot be accepted. 13. Coming to the back wages, the plea of the workman is that he should be awarded full back wages. Both categories are now put on a par by Section 11-A. 12. Therefore, in view of the above, the submission made by the counsel for the management that the Tribunal cannot appraise the evidence cannot be accepted. 13. Coming to the back wages, the plea of the workman is that he should be awarded full back wages. A bare perusal of the award shows that after the dismissal, the workman worked as an Accountant with the firm, which is stated to be of his father, without any salary. However, his aggregate income after having enrolled as an Advocate on 20.12.1976 to 22.10.1981, the date on which he appeared before the Court was found Rs. 9333/-, which has been ordered to be deducted from the arrears of the back wages, allowed to him. As discussed above, the workman has been dealt with quite liberally by the Labour Court exercising the powers under Section 1-A of the Act. The Labour Court if can mould the punishment finding it to be disproportionate, can also mould the relief with regard to the back wages and again for the benefit of workman it did not feel for any further adjustment of income from the said date i.e. 22.10.1981 till the passing of the award, may be for want of any further evidence. 14. While exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court. Even otherwise, this Court is satisfied that on the basis of evidence on record, the Labour Court has arrived at certain findings of fact, which are neither perverse nor based on no evidence. In these circumstances, it would not be possible to interfere with the award given by the Labour Court. 15. In view of the above, there is no merit in both the petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.