Judgment :- A.K. Ganguly, CJ. This appeal has been filed by one Palanisamy, the first respondent in the writ petition, which was filed by the Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’). The material facts of the case are: 2. The present appellant was engaged a Forest Watcher in the said Corporation on 23.11.1974. During the period between 08.04.1984 and 08.07.1985, the present appellant was absent from duty. Initially, his father had suddenly died at Uruvampatti near Kudumiyammalai at Pudukkottai District and the appellant gave a leave application to his co-worker and asked him to convey the matter to the superiors. However, in view of indifferent relation between the petitioner and his co-worker, he did not handover the letter and gave the appellant an impression that he handed over the same and the appellant believed the said statement. The sudden death of his father was a great shock to the appellant. Hence, he fell sick and he sent medical certificate. Thereafter, his sister also died and as a result of which, the appellant had undergone further period of mental strain and was absent from his duty for the period mentioned above. On those facts, a charge memo was given to the appellant, to which he gave his explanation on 05.04.1986 and a department enquiry was held on 04.05.1986, in which the charges were proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was served on him and finally, the appellant was removed from service by order dated 27.06.1986. Thereafter, the appellant filed several petitions against the order dated 27.06.1986. After a period of five years, he went before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and raised a dispute. Conciliation ended in failure. Even thereafter, the appellant did not approach the Labour Court. Ultimately the Labour Court was approached and the following issues were framed for adjudication. They are as follows:- “1. Whether the charges framed against the petitioner were proved? 2. Whether the absence of the petitioner has been condoned and was allowed to join duty after regularizing the period of absence and subsequent order of dismissal of the same misconduct is illegal? 3. Whether the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner is too harsh and grossly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct?” 3. 2. Whether the absence of the petitioner has been condoned and was allowed to join duty after regularizing the period of absence and subsequent order of dismissal of the same misconduct is illegal? 3. Whether the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner is too harsh and grossly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct?” 3. In respect of first two issues, the Labour Court held against the appellant to the effect that the charges leveled against the appellant have been proved and the Labour Court also held that the order of dismissal against the appellant was not illegal. But in respect of third issue, viz., punishment of dismissal, which was awarded to the appellant, the Labour Court found it too harsh and grossly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. Thereupon, the Labour Court directed that the appellant may be reinstated in service without any backwages. The exact finding of the Labour Court on this aspect is that the Corporation was directed to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service, but without backwages and other attendant benefits. 4. Before coming to the said findings, the Labour Court recorded that there are no serious misconduct and there are no bad past records against the appellant and he had been discharging his duties for more than 10 years without any bad record and in the said circumstances, the Labour Court stated that the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service was too harsh and grossly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. 5. The learned Judge of the writ Court quashed the award of the Labour Court inter alia on two grounds. 6. The learned Judge in his judgment set out the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and considered a Division Bench judgment reported in 1989(1) LLJ 323 (Kanyakumrai Automobiles (P) Ltd. Vs. P.Natarajan and Another). In view of the judgment of the Division Bench, the learned Judge found that there was no need to grant relief under Section 11A of the Act inasmuch as there must be a finding that the discharge or dismissal is not justified before any relief can be granted under Section 11A by the Labour Court. The learned Judge, while dealing with the said Division Bench judgment, found that unless the Labour Court gives such a finding, it has no power to give relief as contemplated under Section 11A of the Act. The learned Judge, while dealing with the said Division Bench judgment, found that unless the Labour Court gives such a finding, it has no power to give relief as contemplated under Section 11A of the Act. In other words, the learned Judge held that a finding about no justification of discharge or dismissal is a condition precedent for granting any relief as contemplated under Section 11A of the said Act. 7. Following the said ratio, the learned Judge found that since in the instant case, the Labour Court ended with a finding that the dismissal order of the petitioner is not illegal, it cannot grant any relief to the appellant on the issue that the punishment is too harsh and grossly disproportionate to the nature of the misconducts. Hence, the learned Judge quashed the award passed by the Labour Court. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and after considering the provisions of Section 11A of the said Act, this Court is constrained to hold that the finding of the learned Judge cannot be sustained for the reasons which are being discussed below. 9. The provisions of Section 11A of the Act read as follows:- “11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals 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, 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 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. 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 matter.” 10. 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 matter.” 10. It may be noted that the said provision was introduced in the said Act by way of amendment in the year 1971 by Industrial Disputes Amendment Act 45 of 1971. The said amendment was introduced; vide Section 3 of the said Act, with effect from 15.12.1971. It may be remembered in this connection that the said amendment was introduced in the said Act on the basis of norms formulated by International Labour Organization. While introducing the said amendment, Clauses 2 and 3 of the Statement of Object and Reasons are important. The relevant clauses from the Statement of Object and Reasons are as follows:- “2. The International Labour Organization, in its recommendation (No.119) concerning ‘termination of employment at the initiative of the employer’ adopted in June, 1963, has recommended that a worker aggrieved by the termination of his employment should be entitled to appeal against the termination, amongst others, to a neutral body such as an arbitrator, a court, an arbitration committee or a similar body and that the neutral body concerned should be empowered to examine the reasons given in the termination of employment and the other circumstances relating to the case and to render a decision on the justification of the termination. The International Labour Organization has further recommended that the neutral body should be empowered (if it finds that the termination of employment was unjustified) to order that the worker concerned, unless reinstated with unpaid wages, should be paid adequate compensation or afforded some other relief. 3. In accordance with these recommendations, it is considered that the Tribunal’s power in an adjudication proceedings relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman should not be limited and that the Tribunal should have the power, in cases wherever necessary, to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it think 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. For this purpose, a new Section 11A is proposed to be inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.” 11. The aforesaid Section was also considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on several occasions. Reference in this connection may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. Vs. Management, (1973) 1 LLJ 278 . The learned Judges considered the recommendation of ILO and at paragraph 10 and at page 286 of the report, the learned Judges has pointed out the effect of introduction of the said Section 11A. Considering the purpose of the said Section, the learned Judges held that – “…….Even if the enquiry proceedings are held to be proper and the finding of misconduct is also accepted, the Tribunal has now power to consider whether the punishment of dismissal or discharge was necessary for the type of misconduct of which the workman is found guilty…….” The aforesaid finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. In its finding, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held a view, which was contrary to the view expressed by the learned Judge in the judgment under appeal. 12. Reference in this connection can also be made to the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in a case of Rama Kant Misra Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1982 SC 1552 . In paragraph 7 at page 1554 of the report, the learned Judges after referring to Section 11A of the said Act held - “These words indicate that even though misconduct is proved and a penalty has to be imposed, the extreme penalty of dismissal or discharge was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case meaning thereby that the punishment was either disproportionately heavy or excessive. As stated earlier it is a well recognized principle of jurisprudence which permits penalty to be imposed for misconduct that the penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence charged.” 13. In another judgment, the Division Bench of Guwahati High Court, in the case reported in Workmen of T.Tea Estate Vs. Mgt. of T.Tea Estate and Others, (1987) II LLJ 491, has held that the power given under Section 11A was very wide and laid down the following proposition – “It is a fundamental principle of justice that punishment should be commensurate with the guilt. Mgt. of T.Tea Estate and Others, (1987) II LLJ 491, has held that the power given under Section 11A was very wide and laid down the following proposition – “It is a fundamental principle of justice that punishment should be commensurate with the guilt. Judex acquitatem semper spectare debot: a Judge ought always to have equity before his eyes …….” (para 14, page 496 of the Report) According to the learned Judge, those principles must always guide the Tribunal while following the provisions given under Section 11A of the said Act. We are in respectful agreement with the same view. 14. Similar observations have been made subsequently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, AIR 1987 SC 104 . In paragraph 9 of the said judgment, the learned Judges held that – “In the instant case we have stated hereinbefore that the Tribunal clearly found that the enquiry was held fairly and properly and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal on considering the harshness of the punishment in consideration of the nature of the charge directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service but without backwages……” The learned Judges observed that the award of the Tribunal ‘is in conformity with the provisions of Section 11A of the said Act’ (page 106 of the Report). The same thing has been done in the said case by the Tribunal granting the relief of reinstatement to the workman without backwages. 15. Subsequently also, in the case of Scooter India Ltd. Vs. Labour Court, Lucknow, AIR 1989 SC 149 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 6(2A) of the UP Industrial Disputes Act, which is similar to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, held that – “The Labour Court has taken the view that justice must be tempered with mercy and that the erring workman should be given an opportunity to reform himself and prove to be a loyal and disciplined employee of the petitioner Company. It cannot therefore be said that merely because the Labour Court had found the enquiry to be fair and lawful and the findings not to be vitiated in any manner, it ought not to have interfered with the order of termination of service passed against the respondent in exercise of its powers under Section 6(2A) of the Act.” This view of the Hon’ble Apex Court is quite contrary to the view expressed in the judgment under appeal. 16. In view of the consistent opinion expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 11A of the Act, this Court cannot uphold the finding of the learned Judge that in the absence of finding that the order of dismissal is illegal, the Labour Court has no power to give any relief by way of reduction of penalty while exercising its discretion under Section 11A of the said Act. 17. Undoubtedly, attention of the learned Judge was not drawn to the relevant decisions of various Courts, especially that of the Apex Court on this point. 18. For the reasons discussed above, we are unable to uphold the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court. We are setting aside the order of the learned Judge and we affirm the award passed by the Labour Court for the reasons as discussed above. 19. In result, the appeal is allowed and the writ petition filed by the Corporation is dismissed. We direct the said Corporation to reinstate the appellant in terms of the award passed by the Labour Court within a period of two weeks from today. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.