Honble RATHORE, J.–The matter comes up on the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Both the parties are agreed that the writ petition may be finally heard. (2). This writ petition is directed against the impugned Award dated 24.8.2001 passed by the Judge, Labour Court No.2, Jaipur. The main challenge to the impugned Award is on the ground that the learned Labour judge has not considered the aspect regarding punishment and the burden of proof or grounds for considering the misconduct and as to how the evidence is to be appreciated when the termination of service is after a duly conducted domestic enquiry and also seriously erred in not giving any findings as to whether the misconduct of insubordinate, indiscipline, instigating Go Slow and Strike, intimidating the workers which resulted in Go Slow and strike and subsequent lockout is established or not during the enquiry conducted by the employer. Unless the finding of misconduct is arrived at the gravity of punishment or whether the punishment is disproportionate or not cannot be given. (3). Further the Labour Court has seriously erred in holding the punishment as disproportionate. This finding is without any basis because the learned Judge has nowhere in the aforesaid judgment considered as to what was the misconduct committed and proved in the enquiry and unless a finding as to the proved misconduct is arrived at, the question of proportionality of the punishment cannot be considered. The Labour Court has also wrongly observed that once the domestic enquiry has been held to be fair the only question that requires consideration is the question of punishment and this finding given by the Labour Court is completely erroneous because once the enquiry has been held to be fair, not only the question of punishment is required to be considered but also it has to be considered that whether the alleged misconduct has been proved or not by the evidence recorded during the domestic enquiry. (4). On the point of discrimination, the Labour Judge has not considered the question of discrimination in its correct prospective. It is on record that Ramkaran Chaudhary and neither instigated nor abated the strike nor he has been disobedient with the seniors. he was only a follower and therefore, lesser punishment has been awarded looking to his conduct. (5). (4). On the point of discrimination, the Labour Judge has not considered the question of discrimination in its correct prospective. It is on record that Ramkaran Chaudhary and neither instigated nor abated the strike nor he has been disobedient with the seniors. he was only a follower and therefore, lesser punishment has been awarded looking to his conduct. (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that so far as Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short `the ct) is concerned, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to consider with regard to minimum punishment and the reinstatement order while setting aside the termination order of the respondents workman, is complete ignorance of the law as laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. (6). Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred the observations made by the Labour Court with regard to disproportionate punishment as the employer has not considered before awarding the punishment that there was promotion of employees after 1978 and the workmen were the President and Secretary of the Union and Ramkaran was punished for the similar offence with a minor penalty and the workmens conduct was appreciated by the employer from time to time. (7). It is further submitted that the proportionality of the punishment has to be decided with reference to the misconduct committed and not on considerations of likely misery caused to the family or promotion given 6 or 7 years back or when the misconduct for which punishment has been awarded are different. Besides this Ramkarans charge is quite different to that of the delinquents. (8). In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Gopal Singh & Anr., decided on 24.10.97 and reported in 1998(1) WLC (Raj.) 1, more particularly para-28, wherein this Court has observed as under: "28. In the light of discussion aforesaid, our conclusion should be- (a) With regard to question (a) even if the misconduct is proved there can be an interference for good and sufficient reasons under Section 11A of the Act of 1947. In the light of discussion aforesaid, our conclusion should be- (a) With regard to question (a) even if the misconduct is proved there can be an interference for good and sufficient reasons under Section 11A of the Act of 1947. (b) With regard to question (b) the power under Section 11A has to be exercised judicially and the labour Court, Tribunal or the National Tribunal is only expected to interfere with the decision of the Management only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. It cannot be equated with the power of `veto. (c) With regard to question (c) the High Court in its exercise of supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has indeed a limited jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned award. As a general rule, the High Court will not, interfere unless the order of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal is perverse or not based on any evidence or grossly illegal or based on a complete misconception of law or it is such that no reasonable man would come to the conclusion about. There is no hard and fast rule that the High Court is always to sent the matter back to the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for appropriate adjudication and for passing appropriate punishment in accordance with law. (d) With regard to question (d) we need not specifically answer the question because we think we should not look at the problem from the particular angle that the reputation of the Corporation has been lowered down in the estimation of he passengers boarding the bus as well as the public at large." (9). Further referring the aforesaid judgment, Mr. Agarwal submits that in the instant case also misconduct is proved and there was no sufficient reason to interfere while exercising power under Section 11-A of the Act and the Labour Court has wrongly interpreted Section 11 of the Act which was incorporated by way of amendment in the year 1971. (10). Further referring the aforesaid judgment, Mr. Agarwal submits that in the instant case also misconduct is proved and there was no sufficient reason to interfere while exercising power under Section 11-A of the Act and the Labour Court has wrongly interpreted Section 11 of the Act which was incorporated by way of amendment in the year 1971. (10). Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others, decided on 16.12.2005 and reported in (2006) 1 SCC 430 to strengthen his submission with regard to misconduct and insubordination by the employee. (11). He further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Obettee Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Shafiq Khan, decided on 23.9.2005 and reported in AIR 2005 SC 3510 with regard to discrimination as the Labour Court has observed that the punishment awarded to the respondents workmen is discriminatory qua with Shri Ramkaran Chaudhary and it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the charges levelled against Shri Ramkaran Chaudhary and the respondents workmen are altogether different, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case that workman tendering apology for going on illegal strike stands on different footing than workman who justifies his action and such action awarding with the punishment of termination does not amounts to discrimination. (12). Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also referred the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B. Narawade, reported in 2005(1) C.L.R. 803, wherein it was held that 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 requires 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. (13). 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. (13). In the instant case also, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that discrimination with punishment qua with Shri Ramkaran Chaudhary is not proved and discretion which has been exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act, in such circumstances, it not available with the Labour Court, which has been wrongly exercised observing that the punishment is disproportionate and discriminatory. (14). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred the impugned Award dated 24.8.2001 passed by the Labour Court to show that the observations made by the Labour Court is contradictory and has not correctly appreciated the evidence led and also not care to show the domestic enquiry conducted into the affair and holding that the respondents workmen are guilty of misconduct. In such circumstances, quashing and setting aside the termination order dated 30.12.91 on the ground of disproportionate, is absolutely per se contrary to the facts and circumstances, and findings as also the record of the case. (15). I have considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully perused the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as well as the judgments referred as also the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur. (16). The Government vide its order dated 20.1.1994 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, made the following reference: ^^D;k izca/kd] vfuy LVhy ,.M b.MLVªht fy- dudiqjk t;iqj }kjk loZ Jh cnzhukjk;.k ehuk ,oa Jh lqjsUnz flag ks[kkor egkea=h jk"Vªh; vfuy LVhy etnwj la?k ¼lhVw½ dudiqjk t;iqj dks fnukad 30-12-91 ls lsokeqDr djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks ;g nksuksa Jfed fdl jkgr dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ (17). The Labour Court had to adjudicate the matter to show that whether the termination order dated 30.12.91 is just, proper and legal or not?, as the petitioner has averred and submits that the Labour Court has not correctly observed and correctly appreciated the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, more particularly Section 11-A and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and this Court. (18). Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is reproduced hereunder: 11A. (18). Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is reproduced hereunder: 11A. Power of Labour Court, Tribunal, and National Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.-- Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award set aside the order of discharge of dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require; Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the material." (19). As per Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has a power to quash and set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. (20). Thus, here in the instant case, the Labour Court while exercising power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has quashed and set-aside the dismissal order and proposed lesser punishment in the circumstances as Ramkaran Chaudhary has been awarded. Shri Ramkaran Chaudhary has been given the only punishment of forfeiture of seven days salary and the same will be considered at par with Shri Ramkaran Chaudhary. The Labour Court has observed that this punishment can be awarded to the respondents workmen, but dismissal is disproportionate looking to the allegations against the respondents workmen. (21). Thus, I find no illegality in exercising discretionary power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Labour Court. (22). The Labour Court has observed that this punishment can be awarded to the respondents workmen, but dismissal is disproportionate looking to the allegations against the respondents workmen. (21). Thus, I find no illegality in exercising discretionary power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Labour Court. (22). It is also not disputed that the departmental enquiry was conducted by the petitioner ex parte and it was held that the respondents workmen have not participated in the departmental enquiry and the Labour Court has considered the statement of claim filed by the respondents workmen and observed as under:- ^^tcfd Jfedx.k us ckdk;nk vius LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse esa Hkh bldk iw.kZ :is.k dFku fd;k gSA ;g vafdr djuk Hkh lqlaxr gS fd fu;kstd us iwoZ esa 22-10-99 dks Hkh ,d izkFkZuk i= isk dj ;g fuosnu fd;k x;k Fkk fd fu;kstd us lk{; izLrqr djus dk vkosnu bl vkk; ls isk fd;k gS izkFkhZx.k Mh-bZ- gksus dks gh badkj dj jgs gSaA vr% lcls igys ;g fu/kkZj.k djuk vfuok;Z gS fd Mh-bZ- gqbZ gS vFkok ugha ftl ij Hkh vyx vyx vnkyr us nksuksa i{kdkjku dh cgl lqudj ;g vknsk iznku fd;k x;k Fkk fd fu;kstu us vius Lrj ls Mh-bZ- dks gh ftldh oS/kkfudrk Qs;jusl o pqukSrh ns jgs gSaA vr% izkjafHkd fookn Mh-bZ- gqbZ gS ;k ugha lekIr gks tkrh gSA pwafd Mh-bZ- ugh gqbZ Fkh blfy;s fu;kstd dks bl fcUnw ij lk{; isk djus ls fuokfjr fd;k x;k tks vknsk LVsafMax gS vkSj mldks Hkh fu;kstd us fdlh izdkj ls pSysat ugha fd;k gSA (23). The Labour Court has observed that departmental enquiry has not been conducted and no opportunity was given to the respondents workmen. (24). The Labour Court has observed that departmental enquiry has not been conducted and no opportunity was given to the respondents workmen. (24). To decide the question of punishment, the Labour Court has observed that the punishment of dismissal has been awarded on account of the reasons that the respondents workmen are the officer bearer of the Union and to humiliate the deprive from their rights as they have given the memorandum of the demand chart to the petitioner, therefore, being annoyed, dismissal order has been passed, which has been properly considered by the Labour Court and observed as under: ^^Jfedx.k dks lsok i`Fkd djus dk tks cM+k n.M fn;k x;k gS] og lgh ugha gSA D;ksafd fu;kstd us n.M nsus ls iwoZ vkS|ksfxd fof/k ds loZekU; fl)kUrksa dh iw.kZ :is.k vuns[kh dh gS vkSj Jfedx.k dks lsokeqfDr dk tks n.M fn;k x;k gS og T;knk gS vkSj fujLr djus ;ksX; gS vkSj mUgsa fujLr djus ds fuEufyf[kr vk/kkj gS%& ¼v½ fu;kstd us n.M ds fcUnw ij drbZ fopkj ugha fd;k gS D;ksafd Jfed cnzhukjk;.k] fu;kstd laLFkku esa lu 1978 ls dk;Zjr gS vkSj bls n.M nsus ls iwoZ mls fdlh izdkj dks dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k gS mYVk mDr Jfed ds mRd`"V dk;Z djus dh otg ls le; le; ij inksUufr nh x;h gSA og gsYij ¼,l&1½ ls vkijsVj ¼,l&3½ cuk;k x;kA D;ksafd vkWijsVj ,d dqky Jfed gksrk gS rFkk dqkyrk ds vk/kkj ij gh izkFkhZ dks vkWijsVj cuk;kA bl izdkj fu;kstd us bu ckrksa ij drbZ /;ku ugha fn;kA ¼c½ Jfedx.kksa dks lsokeqDr dk tks n.M fn;k x;k gS] og i{kdkjku }kjk isk fd;s x;s vfHkopuksa dk iw.kZ:is.k foospu djus ds ipkr~ ;g lkjkak mHkjdj lkeus vk;k gS fd Jfedx.k cnzhukjk;.k dk mDr ;wfu;u dk v/;{k Fkk vkSj Jfed lqjsUnzflag ks[kkor mDr ;wfu;u dk egkea=h Fkk vkSj ;s nksuksa le; le; ij Jfedksa ds fgrksa ds fy;s fu;kstd dks Kkiu nsrs jgsA oSls Hkh lafo/kku esa izfrikfnr vf/kdkjksa ds fy;s vius nk;js esa jgdj vkSj viuh e;kZnk esa jgdj vius gd ds fy;s yM+uk dksbZ dkuwuh vijk/k ugha gSA ysfdu fu;kstd us mUgsa lcd fl[kkus ds fy;s lsok i`FkDddj.k fd;k tks cgqr cMk n.M fn;k x;k gSA tcfd mDr Jfedx.kksa dks tks vkjksi fn;k x;k Fkk mlh ds leku ,d vU; Jfed Jh jkedj.k dks Hkh vkjksi i= fn;k x;k FkkA gkykafd foi{kh dh vksj ls bl ij dksbZ fjdkMZ isk ugha fd;k gS vkSj u gh Jfedx.kksa ds }kjk isk fd;s x;s LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse esa bl fcUnq dk dksbZ [k.Mu fd;k gSA pwafd jkedj.k dks dsoyek= lkr fnu dk osru dkVus dk n.M nsdj mls okfil lsok esa fy;k x;k Fkk vkSj mDr Jfedx.kksa ds lkFk HksnHkko fd;k x;k gS tks gekjh fouez jk; esa izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gSA+ 21- fu;kstd }kjk mDr rFkkdfFkr Jfedx.k dks tks lsokeqDr dk vknsk fn;k x;k gS og jaftkok rFkk foDVhekbZtsku dh rkjhQ esa vkus okyk n.M gS tks dkfcys fujLr gSA D;ksafd bl n.M ls iwoZ Jfedx.k dks fu;kstd }kjk fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ n.M ugha fn;k x;k] vfirq muds mRd`"V dk;ksZ dh ljkguk djrs gq, mUgsa inksUufr nh x;hA blls Hkh ;g lkQ tkfgj gksrk gS fd mDr rFkkdfFkr Jfedx.k dk mDr fu;kstd laLFkku dks fdlh izdkj ls vkfFkZd ;k lkekftd {kfr igqapkus dk bZjknk ugha jgk gSa fu;kstd us dsoy ek= mDr rFkkdfFkr Jfedx.k }kjk gMrky djokus rFkk vU; Jfedx.kksa dks cjxykus dk vkjksi yxkrs gq, mDr xEHkhj n.M fn;k x;k gSA ysfdu bl fcUnq dh iqf"V esa fu;kstd }kjk fdlh Hkh vU; Jfedx.k dk u rks kiFki= isk fd;k vkSj u gh dksbZ Bksl lcwr isk fd;kA (25). It was also considered by the Labour Court that the allegations which have been levelled against the respondents workmen are with regard to abating and observed as under: ^^dsoy ek= Jfedx.k dks cjxykus dk vkjksi yxkrs gq, mDr lsok i`FkDddj.k dk tks n.M fn;k x;k gS og gekjh fouez jk; esa lgh ugha gSA (26). It was also observed by the Labour Court that: ^^oSls Hkh tkap fjiksVZ dks ns[kus ls Hkh vkSj tkap vf/kdkjh dk fu"d"kZ nkkZrk gS fd Jfedx.k dk vU; Jfedx.k ds fgrkFkZ dsoy ek= fu;kstd dks Kkiu vkfn fn;k x;k gSA ftldh otg ls Hkh fdlh izdkj dk fu;kstd dks vkfFkZd uqdlku ugha gksrk gSA blds vykok tSlk fd mij vafdr fd;k tk pqdk gS fd lsok i`Fkd djus dk vknsk nsus ls iwoZ fu;kstd us mDr rFkkdfFkr Jfedx.k dh vko;drk ij Hkh fopkj ugha fd;k x;k gSa bl fcUnq ij fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd Jfedx.k us 1990 ikVZ-4 ,llhlh ist 13] flfoy vihy la[;k 3376/82, 1988 fu.kZ; fnukad 4 ebZ 1990] ,vkbZvkj 1973 ,llh ist 1227] ,vkbZvkj 1984 ,llh ist 914 vkfn ds tks lEekuuh; n`"VkUr isk fd;s gSa ftlesa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn Jfedx.k us fdlh izdkj dk xEHkhj nqjkpj.k ugha fd;k gks vkSj fu;kstd dks xEHkhj vkfFkZd uqdlku ugha igqapk;k x;k gks rks mUgsa U;wure n.M fn;k tk ldrk gSA (27). I have considered all the aspects and the judgments referred before me as well as impugned Award passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has also held that since the respondents workmen have not worked, therefore, under the principle of No Work No Pay, they are not entitled for any ages and further given liberty to the employer to award a similar punishment as has been awarded in the case of Ramkaran Chaudhary but the respondents workmen are entitled to be reinstated without continuity in service. (28). I have also considered the ratio decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that discretion can be exercised under Section 11-A on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. (29). (28). I have also considered the ratio decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that discretion can be exercised under Section 11-A on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. (29). Here in the instant case, the punishment is observed as disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct as the similarly situated person Shri Ramkaran Chaudhary has been awarded the only punishment of forfeiture of seven days salary, whereas the respondents workmen being office bearer of the Union, are awarded with punishment of termination, which is disproportionate and the Labour Court has rightly observed that the punishment which has been awarded is disproportionate. (30). In these circumstances, as per the observations made herein above and after thoughtful consideration, I find no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned Award dated 24.8.2001 passed by the Judge, Labour Court No.2, Jaipur and requires no interference by this Court. (31). Consequently, the writ petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (32). Since the writ petition is dismissed, the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act also stands dismissed as having become infructuous.