1. Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. C.P. Talukdar, learned counsel who appears for the Management writ petitioner. None appears for the workman (respondent No. 2). 2. Aggrieved by the award dated 16.2.2002 in Reference Case no. 12/94, passed by the learned Labour Court at Dibrugarh, the Management has preferred the present writ petition. By the impugned award, the learned Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal dated 26.6.1992 passed against the workman and directed that she be reinstated in her service with full back wages with effect from 27.6.1992. 3. The petitioner Smt. Padmini Trilochan (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was a tea garden labour in Daisajan Tea Estate and was issued a show-cause notice dated 13.3.1992 by the Manager alleging that the workman had forcibly occupied a company quarter in spite of having a quarter allotted to her husband and that despite the orders to vacate the quarter she continued to occupy the quarter. From the written statement dated 11.6.1997 submitted by the workman before the learned Labour Court, it appears that the stand taken by the workman was that she was living in the quarter of her husband Jadu Tati who had a subsisting marriage with one Smt Milki Tati. When husband Jadu Tati and his first wife Milki Tati started torturing the respondent No. 2, it became impossible for her to life in the same quarter with her husband Jadu Tati and his first wife Milki Tati. Since as a permanent workman she was entitled to a quarter in the Tea Estate, under verbal authorization of the Welfare Officer of the Tea Estate, she occupied a new quarter. 4. An enquiry was conducted into the allegation and on the charge being purportedly proved, the Management decided that her conduct warrants dismissal from service. Accordingly by the order dated 26.6.1992, issued by the Manager, the service of the workman was terminated and she was also asked to vacate the quarter under her occupation. 5. By the impugned award dated 16.2.2002 the learned Labour Court upheld the validity of the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman. Accordingly by the order dated 26.6.1992, issued by the Manager, the service of the workman was terminated and she was also asked to vacate the quarter under her occupation. 5. By the impugned award dated 16.2.2002 the learned Labour Court upheld the validity of the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman. However, the learned Labour Court found that after the workman was forced to leave the house of her husband Jadu Tati, she became "shelterless" and under such circumstances, it was held by the court that it was the Management's duty to provide her with a roof over her head and in stead of providing a shelter, the management had dismissed her from service, which punishment according to the learned court was shockingly disproportionate to the charges. The learned Labour Court further opined that in such circumstances, an warning would have sufficed. Accordingly by the impugned award, the dismissal order was set aside and the workman was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages with effect from 27.6.1992. 6. Appearing for the Management of the Tea Estate Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel submits that the workman is guilty of willful insubordination and disobedience as she defied the Management's order to vacate the quarter illegally occupied by her and accordingly her act is covered by clause 10(a)(i) of the Standing orders. The learned counsel further submits that under the provision of rule 65 of the Assam Plantation Labour Rules, 1956, hereinafter referred as the "Plantation Rules, 1956" husband and wife cannot claim separate quarter and since the husband Jadu Tati was allotted a quarter by the Management, the workman being his wife had no business to occupy another quarter. It is further submitted that even after she was forced to move out by her husband, because of torture, she should have applied for a separate quarter and should not have occupied the quarter on her own, without due allotment. It is further submitted that even after she was forced to move out by her husband, because of torture, she should have applied for a separate quarter and should not have occupied the quarter on her own, without due allotment. It is further submitted that exercise of the powers under section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, hereinafter referred to as the "I D Act", by the learned Labour Court, was not justified since the learned Labour Court found the inquiry to have been proper and valid and since it is not a case of victimization by the Management, the impugned reinstatement order with full back wages cannot be justified even if the order of removal is considered to be disproportionate to the proven charge. 7. Under the rule 65 of the Assam Plantation Rules it is permissible for the management to provide a single house for a family which might comprise a working husband, a working wife and non-adult working children. Rule 65 of the Assam Plantation Labour Rules, 1956, is extracted herein below for ready reference : "65. Occupation of houses. - (1) Houses shall be allotted on the basis of one house for one worker : Provided that it shall be open to an employer to allot houses to single workers at the rate of a house for not more than ["two"] such workers : Provided further that if there are more than one worker in a family; only one house shall be allotted to the husband, his wife and non-adult children." The Management thus takes the plea that providing a quarter to Jadu Tati was sufficient as the respondent No. 2 was his wife and she was occupying the quarter allotted to her husband Jadu Tati. But issue here is when the workman wife is thrown out of the quarter allotted to the husband by the husband himself, whether the proviso to rule 65 of the Plantation Rules, 1956 would be an acceptable plea for not providing a quarter to the workman wife by the Management. 8. When the respondent No. 2 is forced out of her marital home by her workman husband Jadu Tati from his allotted quarter, in cannot be said that a quarter given by the Management was available for the shelter of respondent No. 2. 8. When the respondent No. 2 is forced out of her marital home by her workman husband Jadu Tati from his allotted quarter, in cannot be said that a quarter given by the Management was available for the shelter of respondent No. 2. Accordingly I am of the opinion that it would not be justified for the Management to invoke the provision of rule 65 to say that even in such situation, the management is not under an obligation to provide a separate quarter to the respondent no. 2. 9. It is seen in the instant case that while the Management continued to highlight the act of willful insubordination and disobedience by the workman in defying the order of the Management to vacate the quarter occupied by her without proper allotment, nothing is available on record to show that an offer of quarter was ever made to the respondent No. 2 by the Management after she was forced to move out of the quarter of her husband because of torture mated out to her by her husband and his first wife. 10. Section 11 A of the Industrial Dispute Act empowers a Labour Court to set aside a dismissal order and direct reinstatement if in a given case it is satisfied that the order of discharge was not justified. The reinstatement can be ordered on such terms and conditions as may be considered appropriate by the learned Labour Court. In the present case learned Labour Court while interfering with the dismissal order took the view that the punishment, of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge of occupying a quarter without allotment, as the respondent No. 2 was rendered shelterless as she was driven out from the quarter allotted to her husband Jadu Tati. On this reasoning the learned Labour Court interfered with the dismissal order and directed reinstatement of the workman by exercising power conferred under section llAof the Industrial Dispute Act. 11. In the perception of this court, no perversity is seen in the award passed by the learned Labour Court which directed reinstatement of the workman by interfering with the dismissal order as the power under section 11A of the I.D. Act was rightly exercised by giving appropriate and acceptable reasons for its decision. 12. 11. In the perception of this court, no perversity is seen in the award passed by the learned Labour Court which directed reinstatement of the workman by interfering with the dismissal order as the power under section 11A of the I.D. Act was rightly exercised by giving appropriate and acceptable reasons for its decision. 12. Now this court is also called upon to examine whether reinstatement with full back wages was justified or not since the Labour Court also took the view that the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of Natural Justice and the same is valid in law. The finding of the domestic enquiry is that the workman concerned violated the discipline of her work place by illegally occupying a quarter and since the said act has been accepted to be a proven act of misconduct by the learned Labour Court, it would not in my view be appropriate to order reinstatement with further direction of payment of full back wages. 13. In view of above, although I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in so far as the reinstatement of the respondent No. 2., I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the reinstatement is ordered to be made by directing payment of only 25% of the entitled back wages to the petitioner in stead of full back wages. 14. This modification is ordered, in view of the fact that the respondent No. 2 continued to occupy a garden quarter all these years without such quarter being allotted to her and also the further fact that she had not rendered any service in pursuant to the dismissal order passed against her on 26.6.1992 and under such circumstances, payment of full back wages to her would not be justified. 15. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of by modifying the impugned award dated 16.2.2002 by directing reinstatement of the petitioner on payment of 25% of back wages in stead of full back wages. No cost.