Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 11-4-2008 made in Writ Petition No. 42619 of 2004 partly allowing the said writ petition where the appellant-management had challenged the award dated 11-8-2006 in I.D. No. 126 of 1999. 2. The brief facts that led the management to file the above writ appeal are stated hereunder: The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court against the order of dismissal passed by the appellant-management holding the respondent-workman guilty of misconduct for having remained unauthorisedly absent for 43 days during the year 1998 of course after a due enquiry. 2.1 The Labour Court in the said award dated 11-8-2004 in I.D. No. 126 of 1999 held the enquiry was fair and proper. However, considering the explanation offered by the respondent-workman that during the relevant period of absence as per the supporting evidence, the respondent was the eldest son and his brother was mentally retarded and he was forced to go to his native place for his brothers treatment who subsequently died. Hence he absented himself for 43 days unauthorisedly. Accepting the explanation offered by the respondent-workman exercising the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to `as the Act) while holding the enquiry was fair and proper held the punishment of dismissal imposed on the respondent was disproportionate and therefore, the Labour Court ordered the appellant-management to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service and directed the appellant-management to pay 20 per cent of the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement and imposed a punishment of denial of three increments with cumulative effect. 3. Aggrieved by the said award the management preferred the Writ Petition No. 42619 of 2004 contending that the respondent-workman remained unauthorisedly absent even on earlier occasions as per his past history and he has committed chronic misconduct by absenting himself consistently and therefore there is no justification for the Labour Court to exercise the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to interfere with the punishment. 4. 4. But the learned Single Judge by order dated 11-4-2008 confirmed the finding of the Labour Court that the punishment imposed by the management was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against him, however, modified the award holding that the respondent-workman is not entitled even for the 20 per cent of the back wages and the denial of three increments with cumulative effect was also confirmed. Hence the present writ appeal. 5. Mr. Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel arguing for the appellant submits that the respondent-workman is habitually absenting himself and has committed gross violation of discipline. He had in the course of his employment absented himself for 141 days at different times and the respondent-workman being employed on production side, he is not expected to absent himself as it causes great loss to the management. According to Mr. Kasturi a distinction has to be drawn between the workmen who are working on production side and administrative side and absence of the workman on production side has got a greater consequence as it results in loss of production for the management vide, Uptron India Limited v Shammi Bhan and Another AIR 1998 SC 1681 : (1998)6 SCC 538 : 1998-I-LLJ- 1165 (SC). 6. We have given our careful consideration to the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. At the outset, we make it clear that there cannot be any second opinion that the absence of the workman working on the production side has got serious consequence causing loss of production to the management. But the issue raised for our consideration in the instant case is that whether the Labour Court has, in passing the award dated 11-8-2004, rightly exercised the power conferred on it under Section 11-A of the Act while modifying the impugned punishment of dismissal imposed by the management by order dated 9-7-1999; that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against the workman and shocks the conscience of the Court and whether the learned Single Judge is right in interfering with the same partly while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Before proceeding further it is apt to refer to Section 11-A of the Act which reads as hereunder: "11-A. 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”. 7. By insertion of Section 11-A the Tribunal is at liberty to consider not only whether the findings of misconduct recorded by the employer is correct but also to differ from the said finding if an appropriate case is made out. In other words, what was once largely in the realm of the satisfaction of the employer has now ceased to be so and now it is the satisfaction of the Tribunal that finally decides the matter. However, when a case of dismissal was referred to industrial adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry is violative of principles of natural justice; and thereafter it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court. However, when a case of dismissal was referred to industrial adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry is violative of principles of natural justice; and thereafter it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court. Even after satisfying itself that the enquiry is not violative of principles of natural justice and the same was held fair and proper, the Tribunal can still come to the conclusion whether the punishment is justified or otherwise depending upon the misconduct found proved and finally if it is satisfied that such misconduct does not warrant dismissal or discharge instead of remitting the matter to the Disciplinary Authority viz., the management for fresh consideration as to the punishment the Tribunal by its award itself may set aside the order of discharge and dismissal and direct the reinstatement of workman on such terms and conditions, if any. 8. Further, if the Tribunal thinks it fit to give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of dismissal or discharge as the circumstances may require, it may do so of course placing reliance on the materials available on record. Such power conferred on the Tribunal under Section 11-A of the Act is intended to prevent further hardship to the workman who approaches the Tribunal for his redressal as he could not afford to undergo prolonged suffering of non-employment. 9. From this angle of the case, we are satisfied that the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the explanation offered by the petitioner viz., that during the relevant period of absence he being the eldest son in the family was constrained to go to his native place to attend to his younger brother who was mentally retarded and who unfortunately died subsequently. 10. It is not the case that the workman had come with this explanation actually before the Labour Court at the first instance but admittedly he offered his explanation viz., that his younger brother who was mentally retarded was ill during the relevant time and the respondent-workman went to his native place to take care of him but unfortunately he subsequently died. Had the respondent-workman come up with this explanation for the first time before the Labour Court or before this Court, of course it would be a different issue. Had the respondent-workman come up with this explanation for the first time before the Labour Court or before this Court, of course it would be a different issue. Such an explanation cannot be entertained by the Tribunal or by this Court as held by the Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, V.S.P. and Others v Goparaju. Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu 2008 LLR 715 (SC). 11. It is settled law that as and when the Labour Court satisfied itself that the punishment imposed by the management is wholly unsustainable and disproportionate to the degree of misconduct of the workman concerned, the Labour Court is well-within its power and jurisdiction to exercise the power conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act judiciously when the materials are available before it, but not merely using the word disproportionate or grossly disproportionate. 12. In the instant case, it is not the case that without any material the Labour Court has exercised the power conferred under Section 11-A of the Act. But materials are available to show that the finding of the Labour Court is logical and legally sustainable and therefore there is no room for any complaint that the finding of the Labour Court suffers from misplaced compassion. 13. Once there are materials available to arrive at a judicial reasoning and process, we are afraid, if the power conferred under Section 11-A is not properly exercised it will render such power redundant. Therefore, non-exercise of such power conferred under Section 11-A of the Act by the Labour Court again would disturb the conscience of this Court because the power under Section 11A has to be exercised to undo any injustice caused to the workman. However, the discretion conferred on the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act should not be exercised casually but has to be exercised judiciously based on the materials available on record and failure to exercise such discretion judiciously also cannot be appreciated. 14. The existence of the mitigating circumstances of the misconduct in question decides that the explanation offered by the workman is a basis for arriving at such conclusion in discharging the discretion conferred on the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act. 14. The existence of the mitigating circumstances of the misconduct in question decides that the explanation offered by the workman is a basis for arriving at such conclusion in discharging the discretion conferred on the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act. While exercising the discretion conferred, the Labour Court has to eliminate irrational or illogical approach and extraneous factors that had weighed with the management for imposing the order of dismissal or discharge in the opinion of the Labour Court, again based on the materials on record. We are therefore satisfied that the Labour Court rightly exercised the power in holding that the order of dismissal dismissing the respondent dated 9-7-1999 is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved. 15. Furthermore, when a challenge is made to the award dated 11-8-2004 referred to above, the Labour Court while exercising the discretion conferred on it was so liberal in awarding 20 per cent back wages which amounts to awarding premium to the absentee. 16. Hence the learned Single Judge exercising judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India rightly set aside the issue by modifying the award. We do not find any merit to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of Since the appeal itself is disposed of there is no need to pass any orders as to the delay.