Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The challenge in the writ petition is made against the award affirming the punishment of termination of service. The workman had been charged with misconduct on hurling verbal abuses on his superior Officer and an enquiry had been conducted and he was found guilty. An order of removal from service was also issued. 2. Before the Labour Court, the Management did not want to enter a contest on a preliminary issue framed whether the enquiry was fair and proper. It decided on the other hand to take a finding that the enquiry was not fair and proper and offered to give evidence before the Labour Court to substantiate the charge. The Officer Ajit Singh, who complained of having been verbally assaulted gave evidence and brought evidence of two other witnesses. The Labour court felt convinced about the quality of evidence and upheld the finding that the workman was guilt of misconduct of hurling abuses. 3. The award insofar as it had allowed for 1/3rd of back wages with effect from the date of his termination namely 23.5.1986 till the date when the Labour Court passed the order on 6.3.1995, became the subject of challenge it writ petition by the Management in CWP No. 424 of 1996. The workman challenged the finding of guilt and the punishment of dismissal in the writ petition bearing No. 5797 of 1996. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman brought out the so called contradictions in evidence relating to the actual time of the occurrence while some witnesses referred to the time as past 1O clock. MW-2 referred the incident as having taken place between 11 to 12 noon. Yet another objection which was brought out was that in the actual complaint to the higher officer and in the enquiry before the enquiry officer, actual words of abuse had not been made but an improvement in the version was made before the Labour Court when the words alleged to have been uttered by the workman were also given. In my view, these contradictions are too minor to vary the result of the enquiry as not properly done. Witnesses were giving evidence more than 10 years before the lunch hours. Even the actual words used for abuses, perhaps civility demanded that the actual words were not given at the time when the after the incident. In my view, these contradictions are too minor to vary the result of the enquiry as not properly done. Witnesses were giving evidence more than 10 years before the lunch hours. Even the actual words used for abuses, perhaps civility demanded that the actual words were not given at the time when the after the incident. There was definite evidence that the incident, took place complaint was put in writing. He had been encouraged to give the actual words at the trial before the Labour Court. Even the Labour Court had considered that this have been merely on account of the tact that in the departmental proceedings the enquiry was less formal and before the Court express words that were actually used were felt necessary to be given by the counsel conducting the case. The ultimate finding of the Labour Court that the charges had been established would require no intervention before this Court. 5. Even when the charge was proved, the issue of whether the punishment was appropriate was always in realm of sound judicial discretion and expressly provided under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This was a case where the workman had admittedly an unblemished record of service. There had been bad blood between the worker and the Superior officer when prior to the incident. complained of, he had complained against the very same officer as guilty of corrupt practice. While the conduct of using expletives cannot be pardoned, somehow it cannot be taken as serious to visit a person with dismissal from service. Learned counsel appearing for the workman refers to a decision of a three member Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Ved Darkash Gupta v. M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 914, where the Honble Bench made reference to a case of abuse by a workman against his superior. The Court took note that there had been no adverse comments against the workman at any previous time. The use of filthy language, even if proved the Honble Court held that it would be too harsh to visit a person with dismissal from service. Similar sentiments were also expressed in an earlier ruling of the Honble Supreme Court in Ram Kant Misra v. The State of U.P. and others 1983 SLR 135. It was also a case where the workman was facing charges of misconduct for using abusive language. Similar sentiments were also expressed in an earlier ruling of the Honble Supreme Court in Ram Kant Misra v. The State of U.P. and others 1983 SLR 135. It was also a case where the workman was facing charges of misconduct for using abusive language. The punishment of dismissal was found to be grossly disproportionate, heavy and excessive. The Honble Supreme Court geld that the misconduct in language indiscreet, improper or disclosing a threatening posture, is invariably the subjective conclusion of the person who hears the language because, voice modulation of every person in the society differs. 6. I am of the view that the punishment of dismissal from service was excessive and Labour Court was not justified in affirming the punishment. The workman had admittedly entered into service in the year 1947 and it is likely that if he had been in service he would have been superannuate. Punishment of dismissal from service alone is set aside and he shall be deemed to have been retired from service on the date of the award by the trial Court but without back wages. The terminal benefits shall be calculated on such basis. 7. The award of the Labour Court stands modified to the extent mentioned above and the writ petitions are disposed of as above.