ORAL JUDGMENT In this petition, the petitioner, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as âSthe corporationâý) has challenged award dated 13.5.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in reference (IT) No.72 of 1999. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has set aside the order passed by the reviewing authority and confirmed / restored the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved by the said award of the learned tribunal, the petitioner â corporation has preferred this petition. The facts involved in this case are; after conclusion of departmental inquiry against the respondent the disciplinary authority had imposed punishment of stoppage of 2 increments with permanent effect and subsequently, the matter was taken up for review in accordance with the applicable rules. The reviewing authority, being of the opinion that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was inadequate as against the nature and gravity of the misconduct, imposed penalty, after affording opportunity of hearing and defence, of placing the respondent 3 stages lower in the pay scale and the industrial tribunal has set aside the said order of the reviewing authority while exercising powers under section 11(A) and has also held that the reviewing authority has no power to enhance the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has claimed that the said award of the industrial tribunal is unsustainable and bad in law. Mr. Sanghavi appears on behalf of Mr. Dagli for the petitioner corporation. Mr. Sanghavi for the petitioner corporation submitted that the industrial tribunal is not right or justified in holding that the reviewing authority does not have power to enhance penalty. He also submitted that even in past the respondent was warned or penalized for various misconducts which is evident from the default card of the respondent and in one of the instances he had indulged into similar misconduct and that therefore, the learned tribunal erred in exercising powers under section 11(A) of the Act. He also submitted that when the employer has imposed penalty, which is short of dismissal, then, it was not justified for the industrial tribunal to exercise powers under section 11(A) of the Act and to set aside order of penalty. The learned tribunal also accepted that the charges were proved yet the powers under section 11(A) of the Act came to be exercised. The learned tribunal also accepted that the charges were proved yet the powers under section 11(A) of the Act came to be exercised. He submitted that when it was accepted by the learned tribunal that the charge was proved, then in that event, the tribunal ought not have interfered with the decision of the reviewing authority and/or the decision regarding quantum of penalty. Mr. Brahmbhatt appearing for the respondent, at the outset, submitted that since the respondent has not challenged the award, the scope of his submissions would be restricted. In his submission the learned tribunal has not considered various aspects and evidence. He also submitted that the reviewing authority had exceeded its powers and the tribunal is right in holding that the reviewing authority does not have power to enhance penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. In support of his submission he relied upon the judgment and order dated 9.1.2008 passed by this court in special civil application No.4587 of 2004 (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K.Rathod). He submitted that the respondent workman being poor, did not challenge the award, however, the punishment imposed by the reviewing authority is excessive and though, as per the inquiry report various other employees were also involved in the incident, only the respondent was chosen by the petitioner corporation for imposing penalty. He lastly submitted that this court may not interfere with the award passed by the learned tribunal, however, if the court is of the opinion that the award does not deserve to be maintained, then in that event, the matter may be remanded to the learned tribunal for reconsideration. On perusal of the record of present petition and upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it has come out that certain allegations and charges were levelled against the respondent which, according to the petitioner corporation, were of serious nature and that therefore, the charge sheet dated 17.1.1992 was issued pursuant to which departmental inquiry was conducted. On perusal of the said charge sheet, it transpires that some conductors were transferred from one place to another due to administrative reasons and the said transfer orders were made an issue for agitation which turned into strike. On perusal of the said charge sheet, it transpires that some conductors were transferred from one place to another due to administrative reasons and the said transfer orders were made an issue for agitation which turned into strike. The respondent along with other persons had, during the said agitation, rushed into the office of the divisional controller, Baroda on 18.12.1991 and started abusing the officer and also attempted to attack the divisional controller and the said agitation became almost a riot-like situation and therefore, the officers had to call police. The said actions of the respondent, along with other workers, had caused serious inconvenience to the public and serious administrative problems for the petitioner corporation since the corporation had to also make arrangements for buses from other depot so as to serve the passengers. It was on the basis of such allegations that the charge sheet was issued and the departmental inquiry was conducted. Upon conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report. The inquiry officer, on the basis of material available on the record of inquiry proceedings, held that the charges levelled against the respondent were proved. The disciplinary authority, after considering the material, imposed penalty of stoppage of annual increments for 2 years with permanent effect. The respondent, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred appeal before the departmental appellate authority. While considering the appeal, the departmental appellate authority, which is also reviewing authority, considering the gravity of the misconduct and the past record of the appellant i.e. present respondent, decided to take up the matter in review and therefore, issued a show cause notice calling for his explanation as to why the matter should not be taken up in review and penalty should not be enhanced. After considering the response of the respondent, the reviewing authority passed an order enhancing the penalty whereby, the reviewing authority directed to place the respondent 3 stages lower than his then existing stage in the applicable pay scale. The respondent challenged the said order before the industrial tribunal and the industrial tribunal has, by impugned award, set aside the order of the reviewing authority and restored the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Before the labour court the respondent admitted the legality of the inquiry, although he questioned the propriety of Inquiry Officer's findings. The respondent challenged the said order before the industrial tribunal and the industrial tribunal has, by impugned award, set aside the order of the reviewing authority and restored the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Before the labour court the respondent admitted the legality of the inquiry, although he questioned the propriety of Inquiry Officer's findings. The law regarding the scope of judicial review of penalty imposed by the employer is, by now, well settled. It is not for the court, after arriving at the conclusion that the charge levelled against the workman is proved and / or after agreeing with and accepting the findings of the inquiry officer that the charge against the workman is proved, to weigh the order of penalty (i.e. the quantum of penalty) passed by the employer in golden scales. The court may, of course, apply the doctrine of proportionality but would refrain from interfering with the quantum of penalty unless the penalty imposed by the employer is shockingly disproportionate. In present case, the respondent had, as submitted by Mr. Brahmbhatt, admitted the legality and propriety of the disciplinary inquiry and that therefor, the legality of the inquiry was not an issue to be decided by the court. The respondent had, however, as submitted by Mr. Brahmbhatt, disputed the maintainability of the findings of the inquiry officer. It is pertinent that in paragraph 10 of the award, the industrial tribunal has recorded its finding that the charges levelled against the respondent are proved and the industrial tribunal has also taken into account the past service record of the respondent and noticed that the past record of the respondent was not satisfactory inasmuch as there are about 23 cases of irregularities and misconducts recorded against the respondent and in one of the said past cases the respondent was penalized for similar misconduct which, as per the observations of the industrial tribunal, is evident from his default card. In light of such findings, the tribunal has also recorded that considering that the charges of misconduct are proved and the past record is also tainted, the order passed by the disciplinary authority is just and proper. After having recorded such findings, the tribunal proceeded further in the matter and has, by impugned order, interfered with the order passed by the reviewing authority. After having recorded such findings, the tribunal proceeded further in the matter and has, by impugned order, interfered with the order passed by the reviewing authority. The industrial tribunal, after recording such conclusions, ought not to have taken up the task of comparing the quantum of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and imposed by the reviewing authority. Even otherwise, considering the nature of misconduct in question and considering the history of about 23 cases recorded in his default card, one of which happens to be of similar nature, and in view of the fact that the court accepted that charges is proved, the penalty imposed by reviewing authority cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate and did not warrant any interference. So far as the issue of lack of power with the reviewing authority to enhance the penalty is concerned, the said issue is now settled by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court wherein, it is held that the reviewing authority has the power to enhance the penalty. Thus, the said contention of Mr. Brahmbhatt does not survive. The submission of Mr. Brahmbhatt that the penalty imposed by the reviewing authority is too harsh and the learned tribunal was justified in interfering with the same also does not appeal to this court, more particularly, in view of the nature and gravity of the misconduct and also in view of the fact that the respondent has been penalized for similar conduct in past also. Thus, the said contention of Mr. Brahmbhatt is not accepted. On overall consideration of the matter, the order passed by the industrial tribunal in interfering with the penalty imposed by the reviewing authority is improper and unjustified exercise of power under section 11-A of the Act and the award is and unsustainable. Thus, the impugned award is set aside and the order dated 13.5.2003 passed by the reviewing authority is restored. The present petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.