JUDGMENT: 1. THE petitioners in this writ petition dated September 25, 2002 are questioning the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata dated January 29,2002, Annexure P13 at p.60, answering the reference in the negative and directing the petitioners to reinstate the third respondent, the workman, Shiv Charan Lal. 2. SHIV Charan was working in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the first petitioner, as a sweeper. A chargesheet dated April 28,1994, Annexure P4 at p.22, was issued alleging that he unauthorisedly erected certain temporary "hutments" on the terrace of one "Rallies Bidg." and was staying there with his family. Another chargesheet dated September 1, 1994, Annexure P5 at p.24, was issued alleging that he erected another unauthorised temporary construction on the terrace of the building. The disciplinary authority ordered a domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated March 30, 1995, Annexure P6 at p.25, holding that the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority issued an order dated July 10, 1995, Annexure P9 at p.32, inflicting on him the penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. By an order dated September 21, 1995, Annexure P10 at p.33, the appellate authority rejected the appeal, and by an order dated August 27,1999, Annexure P11 at p.34, the Chairman of the Corporation rejected his statutory memorial dated March 25, 1996. Under the circumstances, the Central Government, by an order dated March 24, 2000, referred the dispute to the Tribunal. The issue referred is as follows: "Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Calcutta Metropolitan Division-1, Calcutta in imposing punishment on Shri Shiv Charan Lal Sweeper (SR No. 321031) removing him from service is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?" 3. THE reference was contested by the Corporation and the workmen who filed their respective written statements. After recording evidence the Tribunal heard the parties as to the validity of the domestic enquiry and held that the domestic enquiry conducted fairly was valid. THE Tribunal then considered the quantum of punishment. 4. THE Tribunal has noticed and said as follows: "As it has been observed earlier, there is no question of considering the correctness or otherwise of the punishment awarded to the workman concerned, because the validity of the enquiry report has not been dispute in true sense. THE Tribunal then considered the quantum of punishment. 4. THE Tribunal has noticed and said as follows: "As it has been observed earlier, there is no question of considering the correctness or otherwise of the punishment awarded to the workman concerned, because the validity of the enquiry report has not been dispute in true sense. But, so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, it may be noted that the punishment awarded to the workman is not the only punishment provided in such case in the Regulation also. This is the harshest and severest punishment awarded to a workman. In this regard certain facts may be noted that the workman had continued to work with LIC for altogether 18 years before his dismissal and so far as the construction of the temporary hutments are concerned, he also never denied; rather, he all- along pleaded that because of paucity of space in the room provided to him for residence, he had raised some structures of temporary nature as others had also made and he has also stated that subsequently when the proceeding was initiated against him in respect of his building, on his own, he removed the structure. THE allegation of the management that he had reconstructed the hutment after once demolishing the same is disproved by the evidence of MW4. Admittedly, the workman concerned was lowly paid employee of the lower grade in the service and he was provided only a small room for his residence. He also saw other persons constructing some temporary structures for releasing pressure of his single room and so he constructed some temporary structures. It has also transpired that several persons had constructed such temporary structures, then why it is so that this person was only singled out to be punished with such harshest kind of punishment. It shows some bias on the part of the management. THErefore, in my opinion, the punishment of dismissal awarded to this workman cannot be said to be proportionate to his mistake or offence and the punishment of dismissal cannot be termed as justified by any means." After noticing and saying as noted hereinbefore, the Tribunal concluded as follows: "I, therefore, find that the punishment of dismissal from service as imposed on this workman is not commensurate with the act of omission or commission committed by this workman for which he was charged. Some other lighter punishment could have been awarded to him. It appears from his evidence that when he deposed on 12.03.2001 his age was about 54 years, so he has not reached the age of superannuation in regular course. Because of his dismissal he has also been deprived of his retirement benefits, which appears to be unjustified and improper." Under the circumstances, the tribunal ordered as follows: "In this view of the matter, the punishment of dismissal awarded to Shiv Charan Lal the concerned workman is quashed and it is hereby ordered that the workman be reinstated in service forthwith. However, because, he has remained out of job for such a long period, it will not be proper to order payment of back wages to him, which will fall heavily on the management and non-payment of back wages shall be treated as punishment awarded to him. Therefore, he shall be reinstated in service without payment of any back wages, but continuity of his service shall not be affected so far as the retirement benefits at the time of his superannuation is concerned." 5. FEELING aggrieved by the award, the Corporation and the other petitioners filed this writ petition in which an order dated August 1, 2003 disposing of the workman's application under section 17B was made. By the order dated August 1, 2003 this Court directed the Corporation to pay the workman "full wages last drawn by him inclusive of maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule from 25.9.2002 to 31.7.2003 within a period of three weeks from the date of communication" of the order and also "to go on paying" the workman in terms of the order "during pendency" of the writ petition. 6. MR. Kundu, Counsel for the petitioners, has argued that once the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and valid, it ought not to have interfered with the punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority, especially when the decision of the disciplinary authority was affirmed by the appellate authority and the authority to whom the workman submitted the statutory memorial. According to him, on the facts the Tribunal was not justified in proceeding on the basis that the punishment inflicted was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct. According to him, on the facts the Tribunal was not justified in proceeding on the basis that the punishment inflicted was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct. He has pointed out that during pendency of the writ petition the petitioner reached the age of superannuation, and hence from the date concerned the Corporation stopped paying him according to the order dated August 1, 2003. Relying on Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya vs. Hindustan Motors Limited, 2001(11) LLJ 1259, Mr. Dutta, Counsel for the workman, has said that in view of the proposition that every wrong is not a misconduct, the Corporation was not at all justified in inflicting the harshest of the penalties provided by the relevant provisions for the acts in question. Mr. Dutta has also relied on the Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company vs. Management and Ors., 1973(1) LLJ 278 . 7. I am unable to agree with Mr. Kundu that the proposition of law is that if the domestic enquiry is found to be fair and valid, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment. The proposition is rather otherwise. In view of the provisions of section 11A, even when the Tribunal finds that the domestic enquiry is fair and valid, it is rather the duty of the Tribunal to examine the question concerning quantum of punishment. The punishment inflicted is not to be upheld by the Tribunal of course when it holds that the domestic enquiry is fair and valid. The Tribunal has been conferred an independent power to examine the quanium of punishment, and for the purpose it is to be examined whether the punishment inflicted is disproportionate to the gravity of proven misconduct. 8. IN this case the Tribunal, in my opinion, has rightly examined the question and concluded that the punishment of removal inflicted by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority, and the authority rejecting the statutory memorial was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of proven misconduct. The workman was a sweeper. It is not the Corporation's case that he erected the temporary constructions for making a wrongful gain. He admitted that he erected the constructions. It is the Corporation's own case that he was using the constructions as his residence where he was living with his family. The workman was a sweeper. It is not the Corporation's case that he erected the temporary constructions for making a wrongful gain. He admitted that he erected the constructions. It is the Corporation's own case that he was using the constructions as his residence where he was living with his family. It is nobody's case that he was living in the unauthorisedly erected temporary constructions with the members of his family, even when the Corporation provided him sufficient official accommodation. It seems to me that the Corporation took an entirely legalistic view of the whole matter and in the process completely overlooked the social, economic and political conditions of the country. It did not give any attention to the basic human rights of the workman to live with the members of his family. I am not savings all these for encouraging the downtrodden people of the country to which class the workmen admittedly belongs to indulge in illegal activities. The Corporation decided to inflict the severest of the several punishments provided by the relevant regulation. The Tribunal, in my opinion, was fully justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment. It has ordered the workman's reinstatement without back wages. The workman has not challenged the award, and hence there is no question of deciding the question whether the Tribunal ought to have given him back wages. The Corporation of its own accord stopped paying benefits under section 17B in spite of the fact that the order of this Court directed it to go on paying during pendency of the writ petition. When the workman reached the age of superannuation and accordingly, in the opinion of the Corporation, became disentitled to the benefit, the Corporation, in my opinion, ought to have taken leave of this Court before stopping payment, especially when the order of the Court was that it would go on paying the workman during pendency of the writ petition. However, I do not think, on the facts, it is necessary to deal more with this aspect. I only say that on facts and in law, there is no reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. 9. FOR these reasons, I dismiss the writ petition ordering the Corporation to pay the workman Rs.20,000/- costs within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. 10. I only say that on facts and in law, there is no reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. 9. FOR these reasons, I dismiss the writ petition ordering the Corporation to pay the workman Rs.20,000/- costs within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. 10. URGENT certified xerox copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned. Appeal dismissed.