( 1 ) BY order dated 20. 6. 2006, this petition was disposed of as withdrawn with a liberty in favour of petitioner to approach the concerned labour court. However, pursuant to order passed by this court today in MCA NO. 1937 of 2006, said order of this court dated 20. 6. 2006 was recalled and this petition was restored on the files of this court and was argued by the learned advocates for the parties today itself. ( 2 ) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. Desai for petitioner and Mr. Clerk for respondent. Petitioner has challenged two orders passed by the labour court/industrial court. Labour court has decided T Application no. 103 of 1995 dated 18. 2. 2005. Labour Court Ahmedabad has rejected application. Thereafter, appeal was preferred by petitioner before the industrial court being Appeal (IC) NO. 20 of 2005 and it was then dismissed by the Industrial Court on 28. 11. 2005. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Desai submitted that under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, labour court is also having powers similar to the powers under sec. 11a of the ID Act, 1947. He also submits that there is no provision of retrenchment and lay off in BIR Act, 1946 and yet section25f, G and H of the ID Act,1947 are applicable to the establishment which is covered by the provisions of the BIR Act, 1946. Similar analogy will apply to section 11a of the Act. According to him, the evidence led before the labour court by the respective parties has not been properly examined or appreciated by the labour court. According to him, the issue as to whether the punishment is harsh or not has not at all been examined by the labour court. However, he has denied that the misconduct alleged against him has been established on the basis of the departmental inquiry. He also submitted that no doubt there is serious misconduct committed by the workman but the court should have to consider the question of punishment after considering his past record. Therefore, according to him, labour court has committed error and the industrial court has also erred in not appreciating the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Therefore, according to him, labour court has committed error and the industrial court has also erred in not appreciating the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Clerk for the respondent has submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below and, therefore, this court may not interfere with the same as the same are not perverse or contrary to the record. He also submitted that the legality, validity and propriety of the departmental inquiry was admitted by the petitioner before the labour court and therefore, only question of finding has been examined by the labour court and the labour court after appreciating the evidence led in departmental inquiry, come to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the inquiry officer is based on legal evidence, therefore, charge levelled against workman was found to have been proved in departmental inquiry. According to his submission, the question as to whether the punishment is just and proper or not has also been examined by the labour court and in para 14 and 15, labour court has come to the conclusion that the punishment which has been imposed by the management is proper punishment looking to the gravity/seriousness of misconduct proved against petitioner and, therefore, that question about proportionality of the punishment was correctly examined by labour court and the industrial court was right in not interfering with the same. ( 5 ) I have considered the submissions made by both the learned advocates. I have also perused the order made by the labour court in T. Application and the order of the industrial court in Appeal. It is alleged against the petitioner that on 24. 6. 1994, he was working in Printed Folding Department. He was appointed in the establishment of respondent since 1. 2. 1979 as a permanent employee. It was alleged that he attacked on supervisor with iron rod in the premises and for that, he was served with a charge sheet and after preliminary inquiry, order of suspension was passed against him by management and thereafter, departmental inquiry was held against him and in that, he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. Then order of punishment was passed against him by the competent authority. Before the labour court, vide Exh. Then order of punishment was passed against him by the competent authority. Before the labour court, vide Exh. 28, legality and validity of the departmental inquiry was admitted by workman. It is required to be noted that while giving such purshis under section 11a of the ID Act, 1947, prayer was made by the petitioner that the court may examine only question as to whether the punishment imposed by the employer is harsh and unjustified or not. This aspect has been examined by the labour court after appreciating the submissions made by the learned advocate for the parties. Before the labour court, vide Exh. 48, again, purshis was filed by the workman admitting legality,validity and propriety of the inquiry except the finding given by the inquiry officer. Labour court recorded that now only question required to be examined by labouir court is as to whether the punishment is harsh or unjustified or not because petitioner has not pointed out any reason or the basis as to why findings given by the inquiry officer are perverse. Though there was no any specific submission, labour court has gone into the question as to whether the findings are perverse or not. Labour court considered that the incident occurred on 24. 6. 1994 at 3. 15 p. m. Without any reason the petitioner attacked senior supervisor Mr. R. R. Parikh while entering into the department with iron rod due to which senior supervisor Shri Parikh was seriously injured. Petitioner attacked four times by iron rod upon Shri Parikh. Ultimately, Shree Parikh was having head injury with bleeding and was admitted in hospital of the company. ( 6 ) AFTER examining the evidence on record, labour court concluded that looking to the evidence on record before the inquiry officer, , conclusions drawn by the inquiry officer are based upon the evidence led before him and, therefore, findings are not perverse and/or baseless. Thereafter, labour court examined question as to whether the punishment imposed against workman is harsh or not. Labour court considered that this being serious misconduct committed by the workman in the premises of attacking on the senior supervisor Mr. Parikh without any justification. Labour court has considered the some of the decisions of this court as well as the apex court. Labour court has also considered the decision of Madras High Court and Bombay High Court. Labour court considered that this being serious misconduct committed by the workman in the premises of attacking on the senior supervisor Mr. Parikh without any justification. Labour court has considered the some of the decisions of this court as well as the apex court. Labour court has also considered the decision of Madras High Court and Bombay High Court. After considering the decisions of the apex court as well as other High Court, labour court come to the conclusion that in similar type of misconduct committed by the employee in other cited cases, court has come to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal is the only punishment which can be imposed against such employee who has attacked on his senior supervisor with iron rod. Thus, ultimately, labour court has come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the employer for the misconduct of attacking on supervisor is just and proper punishment calling for no interference while exercising powers under section 78/79 of the BIR Act. Since the labour court found that the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the workman was proper, question of granting reinstatement was not arising. Therefore, question of considering the matter for back wages also was not arising. Therefore, labour court, after considering the decision of apex court and other High Courts, dismissed T Application of the petitioner. ( 7 ) IN Appeal, industrial court has given reason in para 9 of the order that the principles of natural justice have been rightly observed by the respondent and misconduct is proved before the inquiry officer beyond reasonable doubt. In departmental inquiry, only reasonable degree of probability is required to prove the allegation. Industrial court has considered that there is no victimization in passing the order of dismissal. Industrial Court has observed that the question of victimization has to be proved with reasonable degree of probability and it will not be presumed. No reason is forthcoming from the record to point out as to why the incident is concocted against petitioner. Ultimately, after considering the finding given by inquiry officer and reasoning given by the labour court the industrial court decided appeal against petitioner. ( 8 ) I have considered reasons given by both the courts below as well as the submissions made by the learned advocates before this court. Ultimately, after considering the finding given by inquiry officer and reasoning given by the labour court the industrial court decided appeal against petitioner. ( 8 ) I have considered reasons given by both the courts below as well as the submissions made by the learned advocates before this court. Misconduct has been proved against petitioner by legal evidence which has to be considered a gross misconduct which cannot be tolerated by the employer in the premises of the establishment. It is the duty of the employee to maintain discipline in the premises of the employer and such gross indiscipline should not have to be condoned by the employer while considering the question of punishment. ( 9 ) THIS aspect has been examined by the apex court in Muriadh Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Versus Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union through Workmen, reported in 2005 (6) Supreme Today page 169. Apex Court observed as under in paragraph 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18:"13. It is well established principle in law that in a given circumstance it is open to the Industrialtribunal acting under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment awarded in the domestic inquiry for good and valid reasons. If the Tribunal decides to interfere with such punishment it should bear in mind the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the offence and stringency of the punishment. In the instant case it is the finding of the Tribunal which is not disturbed by the writ courts that the two workmen involved in this appeal along with the orders formed themselves into an unlawful assembly,armed with deadly weapons,went to the office of the General Manager and assaulted him and his colleagues causing them injuries. The injuries suffered by the General Manager were caused by lathi on the head. The fact that the victim did not die is not a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of dismissal. 14. Considering the question of proportionality of punishment, this court in the case of Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh [ (2004) 8 SCC 200 : 2004 SCC (Lands) 1067: (2004) 7 Scale 608 ] a case involving misconduct of lesser liability : held : (SCC pp. 212-13, para 29) 29. 14. Considering the question of proportionality of punishment, this court in the case of Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh [ (2004) 8 SCC 200 : 2004 SCC (Lands) 1067: (2004) 7 Scale 608 ] a case involving misconduct of lesser liability : held : (SCC pp. 212-13, para 29) 29. This leaves us to consider whether the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workmen concerned dehors the allegation of extortion is disproportionate to the misconduct proved against them. From the evidence proved,we find the workmen concerned entered the Estate armed with deadly weapons with a view to gherao the manager and others, in that process, they caused damage to the property of the Estate and wrongfully confined the manager and others from 8. 30 p. m. On 12th of October to 3. 00 a. m. On the next day. These charges, in our opinion, are grave enough to attract the punishment of dismissal even without the aid of the allegation of extortion. The fact that the management entered into settlement with some of the workmen who were also found guilty of the charge would not, in any manner, reduce the gravity of the misconduct in regard to the workmen concerned in this appeal because these workmen did not agree with the settlement to which others agreed, instead chose to question the punishment. 15. Similarly in the case of Tournamulla Estate v. Workmen [ (1973) 2 SCC 502 : 1973 SCC (Lands) 510, this court while considering the denial of gratuity to a dismissed workman held : (SCC p. 502) : " (I)f a workman is guilty of a serious misconduct such as acts of violence against the management or other employees or riotous or disorderly behaviour in or near the place of employment which though not directly causing damage, is conducive to grave indiscipline, then, his gratuity can be forfeited ini ts entirety. 16. From the above it is clear that this court has considered an act of violence as an act of grave misconduct calling for stringent punishment. 17. From the facts narrated hereinabove the ratio laid down in two cases referred to hereinabove amply applies to the appeal in hand. 16. From the above it is clear that this court has considered an act of violence as an act of grave misconduct calling for stringent punishment. 17. From the facts narrated hereinabove the ratio laid down in two cases referred to hereinabove amply applies to the appeal in hand. The courts below by condoning an act of physical violence have undermined the discipline in the organization, hence, in the above factual backdrop, it can never be said that the Industrial Tribunal could have exercised its authority under section 11-A of the Act to interfere with the punishment of dismissal. Substituting the order of dismissal in such a case, withholding of one increment in our opinion is wholly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and is unsupportable. 18. Herein it is worth while to recall the finding of the learned Single Judge who has rightly held that the assault on the senior officials by the workmen in discharging of their duties is a misconduct and in such a situation officials who are managing the affairs will be demoralized. "division Bench of this court in Harshadkumar B. Vasis v/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. (Fibre Unit) and Anr. reported in 2005 (10) Gujarat High Court Judgments 602 examined the same aspect and observed in para 12 and 13 that:"12. In other two matters referred to above, the Supreme Court has observed that in a case where an employee tends to misbehave with the senior officers and makes an assault on them, then, in case the allegation of assault is proved, the only punishment should be of termination/dismissal. The Supreme Court has observed that an employee s behaviour qua the senior officer should be mannerful and if etiquettes and courtesies are lost, then, no establishment would work satisfactorily. 13. In the present matter, in view of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, we are of the view that no mercy was called for, the termination should be the only punishment. We find no reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is dismissed. "in State of UP v. Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava and Ors. , reported in JT 2006 (3) SC 48, apex court examined the same aspect. We find no reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is dismissed. "in State of UP v. Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava and Ors. , reported in JT 2006 (3) SC 48, apex court examined the same aspect. Head Note of the said Judgment is reproduced as under:"government Service " Misconduct " Dismissal " Proportionality of the punishment " Appellant an an employee of the State Government deputed to work with Lok Ayukta " Appellant keeping his office almirah locked contrary to specific instructions that no almirah should be kept locked " When called upon by the superior, while on an inspection accompanied by the Lok Ayukta, appellant refusing to open the same nor providing key of the almirah " Instead appellant abusing and shouting at the superior " Departmental inquiry initiated for misconduct " Appellant not agreeing to the appointment of an outsider as Inquiry Officer " Therefore Lok Ayukta himself conducting the inquiry " Consequent to the findings services terminated " High Court while agreeing with the findings of guilt nevertheless directing the conversion of the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement " Validity " Whether Lok Ayukta himself having witnessed the incident giving rise to misconduct, justified in acting as the inquiry officer " Whether dismissal proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Dismissing the appeal of the delinquent held considering the behaviour of the employee the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate and the High Court erred in converting it to compulsory retirement. The employee having opposed the appointment of an outsider as Inquiry Officer the Lok Ayukta was left with no alternative but to conduct the inquiry himself and therefore it was not open to the employee to challenge the same on that ground. "in Hombe Gowda Eeucational Trust and another versus State of Karnataka and others reported in 2006 SCC (Lands) 133, the apex court observed as under in para 19 to 22:"19. Assaulting a superior at a workplace amounts to an act of gross indiscipline. The respondent is a teacher. Even under grave provocation a teacher is not expected to abuse the head of the institution in a filthy language and assault him with a chappal. Punishment of dismissal from service, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate so as to shock one s conscience. 20. The respondent is a teacher. Even under grave provocation a teacher is not expected to abuse the head of the institution in a filthy language and assault him with a chappal. Punishment of dismissal from service, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate so as to shock one s conscience. 20. A person when dismissed from service is put to a great hardship but that would not mean that a grave misconduct should go unpunished. Although the doctrine of proportionality may be applicable in such matters, but a punishment of dismissal from service for such a misconduct cannot be said to be unheard of. Maintenance of discipline of an institution is equally important. Keeping the aforementioned principles in view, we may hereinafter notice a few recent decisions of this court. 21. In Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiha Chah Mazdoor Sangh, (2004) 8 SCC 200 :2004 SCC (Lands) 1067: JT (2004) 7 SC 333, this court held (SCC pp 212-13,para 29) : 29. This leaves us to consider whether the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workmen concerned dehors the allegation of extortion is disproportionate to the misconduct proved against them. From the evidence proved,we find the workmen concerned entered the Estate armed with deadly weapons with a view to gherao the manager and others, in that process, they caused damage to the property of the Estate and wrongfully confined the manager and others from 8. 30 p. m. On 12th of October to 3. 00 a. m. On the next day. These charges, in our opinion, are grave enough to attract the punishment of dismissal even without the aid of the allegation of extortion. The fact that the management entered into settlement with some of the workmen who were also found guilty of the charge would not, in any manner, reduce the gravity of the misconduct in regard to the workmen concerned in this appeal because these workmen did not agree with the settlement to which others agreed, instead chose to question the punishment. 22. Yet again in Muriadih Colliery v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union ( 2005 3 SCC 331 : 2005 SCC (Lands)412: JT (2005)2 SC 444, the law has been laid down in the following terms (SCC p. 335, para 13):""13. 22. Yet again in Muriadih Colliery v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union ( 2005 3 SCC 331 : 2005 SCC (Lands)412: JT (2005)2 SC 444, the law has been laid down in the following terms (SCC p. 335, para 13):""13. It is well established principle in law that in a given circumstance it is open to the Industrialtribunal acting under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment awarded in the domestic inquiry for good and valid reasons. If the Tribunal decides to interfere with such punishment it should bear in mind the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the offence and stringency of the punishment. In the instant case it is the finding of the Tribunal which is not disturbed by the writ courts that the two workmen involved in this appeal along with the orders formed themselves into an unlawful assembly,armed with deadly weapons,went to the office of the General Manager and assaulted him and his colleagues causing them injuries. The injuries suffered by the General Manager were caused by lathi on the head. The fact that the victim did not die is not a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of dismissal. (See also Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Narawade [ ( 2005 3 SCC 134 : 2005 SCC (Lands) 361: JT (2005) 2 SC 583]" ( 10 ) LABOUR court has rightly rejected T Application by order in question and appeal against the same was also rightly rejected by the industrial court. Unless the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are proved to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record, this court cannot disturb the same being the finding of fact. Here, since it has not been proved by the petitioner that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are perverse or contrary to evidence on record, these findings of fact cannot be disturbed by this court in exercise f the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 11 ) THIS aspect has been considered by the apex court in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and another versus Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 . ( 11 ) THIS aspect has been considered by the apex court in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and another versus Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 . Relevant observations made by the apex court in para 9 of the said judgment are therefore reproduced as under:"the High Court under Article 227 cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. "in Ouseph Mathai and Others versus M. Abdul Khadir, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 319 , the apex court observed as under in para 4 and 5 :"it is not denied that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are extraordinary and discretionary powers as distinguished from ordinary statutory powers. No doubt Article 227 confers a right of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction but no corresponding right is conferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdiction under the said Article as a matter of right. In fact power under this Article cast a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority and that they do not cross the limits, ensuring the performance of duties by such courts and tribunals in accordance with law conferring powers within the ambit of the enactments creating such courts and tribunals. Only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this Article unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate courts and tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party. 5. In Waryam Singh v. Amarnath ( 1954 SCR 565 ) this Court held that power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised more sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. This position of law was reiterated in Nagendra Nath Bose v. Commr. of Hills Division ( 1958 SCR 1240 ). This position of law was reiterated in Nagendra Nath Bose v. Commr. of Hills Division ( 1958 SCR 1240 ). In Bhahutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta ( AIR 1975 SC 1297 ) this Court held that the High Court could not, in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a Court of appeal when the Legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. After referring to the judgment of Lord Denning in R v. Northumber Compensation Appeal Tribunal, Exparte Shaw (1952 (1) All ER 122, 128) this Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Gurnam held : (SCC p. 460 para 20)""20. It is true that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution the High Court could go into the question of facts or look into the evidence if justice so requires it, if there is any misdirection in law or a view of fact taken in the teeth of preponderance of evidence. But the High Court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to look into the fact in the absence of clear and cut down reasons where the question depends upon the appreciation of evidence. The High Court also should not interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal except where the findings are perverse and not based on any material evidence or it resulted in manifest injustice (see Trimbak Gangadhar Teland 1977 (2) SCC 437 ). Except to the limited extent indicated above, the High Court has no jurisdiction. In our opinion therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case on the question that the High Court has sought to interfere, it is manifest that the High Court has gone into questions which depended upon appreciation of evidence and indeed the very fact that the learned trial Judge came to one conclusion and the Appellate Bench came to another conclusion is indication of the position that two views were possible in this case. In preferring one view to another of factual appreciation of evidence, the High Court transgressed its limits of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. On the first point, therefore, the High Court was in error. "therefore, there is no substance in this petition and th same is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.