Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. Against the 2nd respondent, workman, a departmental proceeding was initiated, alleging that on 22nd September, 1990 the workman along with another unidentified man went to the residence of his co-worker Mr. K. Rathinavelu and assaulted him. After notice, on hearing the arguments and on appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary, the Enquiry Officer held the workman guilty of the charge. Initially the workman was suspended for the charge, but during the pendency of the enquiry, his suspension was revoked. The workman, having been found involved in another misconduct during the pendency of the first charge, namely, switching off the power supply of the company, a second charge was framed and after enquiry, he was found guilty of the said charge also. Having found both the charges proved, the workman was dismissed on 29th February, 1992, due to which, an industrial dispute was raised and decided by Labour Court, Vellore in I.D.No.1181/1993 by Award dated 18th August 1995. 2. The Labour Court, while observing that the finding of guilty by the Enquiry Officer was based on sound reasoning’s and credible evidence and accepting the finding of the Enquiry Officer in both the enquiries, held that a lenient view should be taken by giving an opportunity to the workman to improve his conduct. Though it was observed that the workman seems to have developed a hostile attitude towards his fellow workers and the management because of his involvement in Union politics, while passing the Award upholding the finding given by the Enquiry Officer against the workman, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed the management to reinstate the workman without backwages. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management submitted that the workman having been found guilty both by the Enquiry Officer and by the Labour Court, there is no occasion to set aside the order of dismissal. It was further submitted that the learned single Judge, without discussing the aforesaid fact, affirmed the Award by a non-speaking order. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman submitted that the Enquiry Officer held him guilty for other charge, which was not formed part of the charge sheet. It was further submitted that the learned single Judge, without discussing the aforesaid fact, affirmed the Award by a non-speaking order. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman submitted that the Enquiry Officer held him guilty for other charge, which was not formed part of the charge sheet. But such submission cannot be accepted, as the Enquiry Officer has not only found the workman guilty of the charge framed against him, but he has also given finding in his report in regard to the said framed charge only. This apart, as the finding of the Labour Court, as given in the impugned award dated 18th August, 1995 has not been challenged by the workman, he cannot assail the Award on the ground of wrong finding. 5. We have not only heard the parties, but also perused all the records including some of the exhibits, which have been cited in the Award. From the impugned order dated 9th March, 2006 in W.P.No.1302 of 1996, it will be evident that the learned single Judge, without discussion of the relevant facts of the case on merits, has affirmed the award and the judgment of the learned Single Judge reads as follows: "The writ petition is filed against the award of the first respondent/labour court whereunder after going through the materials placed on record, while accepting the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer against the second respondent held that the quantum of punishment imposed by the management is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the workman, ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner, but without backwages. Against that, the writ petition is filed contending that the first respondent though satisfied with the enquiry as properly conducted and upholding the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it should not have resorted to interfere with the punishment contemplated under law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, when the first respondent came to a conclusion that the punishment imposed on the workman is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him, the matter can be remitted back for reconsideration of the punishment to a lesser punishment. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, when the first respondent came to a conclusion that the punishment imposed on the workman is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him, the matter can be remitted back for reconsideration of the punishment to a lesser punishment. But taking into consideration of the difficulty of imposing lesser punishment by the first respondent, which was done as early as 1996, at this point of time, I am not inclined to interfere with the above said findings, considering the lapse of ten years. Accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court is confirmed considering the submission made by the petitioner that he is paying 17-B wages and after dismissal of the petitioner, there is no reason to pass any order. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 6. The aforesaid judgment dated 9th March, 2006 being a non-speaking order, we have no other option but to set aside the same. We have already noticed that one of the charges framed against the workman was grievous that he along with another unidentified man went to the residence of the co-worker Mr. K. Rathinavelu and assaulted him. For the said charge, the workman was found guilty both by the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court. The Labour Court had also noticed and observed that the workman seems to have developed hostile attitude towards his fellow workers and the management because of his involvement in Union politics. 7. In view of such grievous charge and finding of the Labour Court that the workman has developed a hostile attitude towards his fellow workers and the management, we are of the view that there has no occasion for the Labour Court to set aside the order of dismissal or reinstate the workman on the ground of leniency. 8. During the course of arguments, when asked whether the matter can be amicably settled between the parties, the Management agreed that if the order of dismissal is upheld, the management may pay back the arrears, which comes to around Rs.4,00,000/-, after adjusting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-approximately, which has been paid to the workman as wages during the pendency of the case under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the workman refused to accept such suggestion made on behalf of the management. 9. In the facts and circumstances and in view of our finding, we have no other option but to set aside the last part of the award dated 18th August, 1995 in I.D.No.1181 of 1993, whereby the Presiding Officer, Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and we uphold the order of dismissal. 10. However, in view of the stand taken by the management, we allow the workman to be present before the management for payment of rest of the amount, namely, Rs.4,00,000/- less Rs.1,50,000/-approximately paid to him during the pendency of the case under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. If any such application is filed by the workman, the management, in view of stand taken before this Court, will pass appropriate orders on the same. The writ appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observation. But there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected WAMP.is closed.