Judgment Harbans Lal, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 806 of 2004 bearing caption Ganpat Rai Aggarwal vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh and another as well as Civil Writ Petition No. 8814 of 2003 titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited, Ludhiana vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh and another as both these writs have arisen out of the impugned award dated 22.1.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh. 2. The facts are garnered from Civil Writ Petition No. 806. Ganpat Rai Aggarwal (hereinafter to be referred as the workman) joined the office of The New India Assurance Company Limited respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the Company) as Assistant (Clerical) on 27.12.1988. He was served with a charge-sheet on the basis of allegations imputations that on 22.2.1994 at 10.00 a.m. during, office hours, he quarrelled up with Krishan Kumar, sub-staff. When Ramesh Chand, Senior Assistant tried to intervene the matter and to dissuade the workman, the latter assaulted and slapped him. The workman misbehaved with Mrs. Surekha Gupta one of the staff members and used abusive, indecent and unparliamentary language. He submitted his reply refuting the allegations. He, in fact, was suffering from a disease "Mania" and was not in his senses. The Inquiry Officer without going through the detailed reply and without afford ing an opportunity of being heard to the workman, submitted his report holding trim guilty of the charges. The punishing authority without issuing any show cause notice before imposing the punishment of removal and without affording opportunity of personal hearing accepted the inquiry report, and passed the order dated 4.1.1995 imposing the punishment of removal from service against the workman whose appeal has also been dismissed. The workman raised industrial dispute. The following issue was framed : Whether the action of the Management of the New India Assurance in terminating the services of Shri Ganpat Rai Aggarwal w.e.f. 4.1.1995 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from what date? The workman raised industrial dispute. The following issue was framed : Whether the action of the Management of the New India Assurance in terminating the services of Shri Ganpat Rai Aggarwal w.e.f. 4.1.1995 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from what date? After hearing the representatives of the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunai- cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh held as under: "To be very clear and specific while reinstating the workman, I may repeat that the punishment is substituted to stoppage of five increments for one year and the backwages which are given to the workman are reduced to 50% and the workman will be entitled to continuity of service with all attendant benefits exercising my powers under section 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947." 3. Feeling aggrieved with this award, the workman has filed the above- mentioned petition for his reinstatement whereas the company feeling dissatisfied therewith has filed the afore-mentioned petition for setting aside the award. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings recorded in the award with due care and circumspection. 5. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the workman strenuously urged that one of the witnesses, namely, Sunil Kumar, Assistant/Typist, who appeared as witness of the Company before the Inquiry Officer has deposed that the wife of the workman had made a telephonic call in the office which was attended by him and as per the same, workman was not mentally fit and he was requested to take care of her husband. He further argued that as a matter of fact, the workman was suffering from MDP (Mania) and was mentally perturbed and due to this reason, he was falsely charge-sheeted. The Inquiry Officer or the Appellate Authority did not take into consideration the mental state of the workman as it was existing at the time of alleged incidence and thus the learned Labour Court was not justified in withholding the relief of reinstatement in the exercise of provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). 6. To overcome these submissions, Mr. 6. To overcome these submissions, Mr. Ravi Kapur, Advocate representing the Company stressing his every nerve maintained that as is borne out from the evidence adduced before the Inquiry Officer, the workman had quarrelled with Krishan Kumar, sub-staff, assaulted and slapped Ramesh Chand, Senior Assistant, SP Jhamb Branch Manager and misbehaved with Mrs. Surekha Gupta and used abusive, indecent and unparliamentary language to her in the office.but despite that the learned Labour Court has reduced the punishment by completely overlooking the gravity of charges which were duly proved. The Labour Court has gone wrong in holding that the punishment imposed by the competent authority duly upheld by the Appellate Court did not commensurate with the circumstances of the case. This finding being perverse on its face, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. To buttress this stance, he has sought to place abundant reliance upon the observations rendered by the Apex Court in re: Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, JT 2005(3) SC 102 and Mahindra and Mahindra Limited vs. N.B. Narawade, JT 2005(2) SC 583. 7. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. In Jagdish Chandra Sharmas case (supra), it has been held as under: "In the case on hand, the employee has been found guilty of hitting and injuring his superior officer at the work place, obviously in the presence of other employees. This clearly amounted to breach of discipline in the organization. Discipline at the work place in an organization like the employer herein, is the sine qua non for the efficient working of the organization. When an employee breaches such discipline and the employer terminates his services, it is not open to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved. We have already referred to the views of this Court. To quote Jack Chan, "discipline is a form of civilly responsible behaviour which helps maintain social order and contributes to the preservation, if not advancement of collective interests of society at large." Obviously this idea is more relevant in considering the working of an organization like the employer herein or an industrial undertaking. Obedience to authority in a work place is not slavery. It is not violative of ones natural rights. Obedience to authority in a work place is not slavery. It is not violative of ones natural rights. It is essential for the prosperity of the organization as well as that of its employees. When in such a situation, a punishment of termination is awarded for hitting and injuring a superior officer supervising the work of the employee, with no extenuating circumstance established, it cannot be said to be not justified. It cannot certainly be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate. The Labour Court and the High Court in this case totally misdirected themselves while exercising their jurisdiction. The Industrial Court made the correct approach and came to the right conclusion." 8. In re : MB. Narawade etc. (supra), the Apex Court held as under: "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 concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to herein above 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 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. As noticed herein above at least in two of the cases cited before us, i.e., Orissa Cement Ltd. (supra) and New Shorrock Mills vs. Maheshbhai T.Rao, JT 1996(9) SC 635, 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. 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 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 herein above." 9. Coming to the instant case, Annexure P.3, in quiry report finds place at page 32 in C.W.P. No. 806 of 2004. The Inquiry Officerhas observed that the cross- examination of all the witnesses presented by the Presenting Officer could not reveal anything to the contrary except that Mr. Ganpat Rai Aggarwal was not in his perfect slate of mind at the time of incident and that no such incidence had earlier taken place with Mr. Ganpat Rai in the office." While discussing the statement of Mrs. Surekha Gupta, it was observed by the Inquiry Officer that "She has however confirmed that but for this incident the behaviour of Mr. Ganpat Rai Aggarwal was very good with all the staff members and that Mr. Ganpat Rai Aggarwal was not in his perfect state of mind at the time of the incident." It is also in the inquiry report that "Mr. Sunil Kumar deposed that he had received a telephonic call from Mrs. Ganpat Rai at about 10.00 a.m. on 22.2.1994 that her husband Mr. Rai was not well and that he should take care of him today." As emerges out of the inquiry report, Krishan Kumar sub-staff as also witness deposed that after some time, the wife of Mr. Ganpat Rai came to the office and apologised for the incident. The very next day, she informed in the office that Mr. Rai had been admitted to the hospital as he was feeling mentally disturbed. In his cross-examination, this witness confirmed that no such incident had taken place in the office earlier with Mr. Ganpat Rai Aggarwal. It is manifestly clear from the above-referred evidence that at the time of incidence, the workman was suffering from mental disorder as per Annexure P.6 in C.W.P. No. 806 of 2004. As would be apparent from this document, the workman was physically handicapped as he had received old sciatic nerve injury, one disability certificate was also issued by Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana, Punjab, bearing No. CM/85/1521 dated 22.8.1985. As would be apparent from this document, the workman was physically handicapped as he had received old sciatic nerve injury, one disability certificate was also issued by Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana, Punjab, bearing No. CM/85/1521 dated 22.8.1985. Even at the time of inpident, he was suffering from M.D.P. (Mania). To crown it all, he was got admitted in the Hospital after this incidence. There was no such complaint against him in the pasta Thus to my mind, obviously, there existed a mitigating circumstance and extenuating factor to reduce the punishment. It follows from the observations rendered in re : Jagdish Chandra Sharma as well as Narawade etc. that if any extenuating factor exists, lesser punishment can be inflicted. Such being the circumstances, in my considered opinion, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has rightly exercised the provisions of Section 11 -A of the Act by substituting the stoppage of five increments for one year and reducing the back-wages to 50% in place of reinstatement of the workman and instead of affirming his removal from service. 10. In view of the preceding discussion, both these petitions fail and are dismissed.