JUDGMENT N. Kumar and Arali Nagaraj, JJ.— Cost of Rs.. 5000/-is paid. 1. These writ appeals are filed against a common order passed by the learned single Judge on November 16, 2009 upholding the order of the Labour Court. 2. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original proceedings, 3. The workmen was working as a plumber in the management institute. He was served with a charge sheet on September 10, 1991, Three charges of misconduct were framed against him. Enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the misconduct in respect of the charges is proved. Acting on the said report, the management dismissed the workmen from service. Aggrieved by the same, workman raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'Act' for short) before the Labour Court. He contended that domestic enquiry conducted is not fair and proper and challenged the order on merits. On Preliminary issue regarding domestic enquiry, Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry is not fair and proper. However opportunity was given for the management to prove the charge. Management examined seven witnesses produced 16 documents and workmen was also examined and produced documents. On adducing oral and documentary evidence charge No. 1 and 2 not proved whereas charge No. 3 is proved. Thereafter Labour Court exercised power under Section 11(A) of the Act and held that the punishment of dismissal imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct established and therefore it set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits. As a punishment what is imposed is denial of back wages from the date of dismissal till the date he was ordered to pay interim relief. Aggrieved by the said order of Labour Court both the management and the workmen preferred two writ petitions before this Court. The learned single Judge after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order holding that the findings recorded by the Labour Court on charge No. 3 is supported by legal evidence, therefore No. case for ' interference is made out. Similarly High Court with regard to the findings of Labour Court held that punishment is shockingly disproportionate to proved misconduct. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned single Judge both the management and as well as workmen filed the appeals. Similarly High Court with regard to the findings of Labour Court held that punishment is shockingly disproportionate to proved misconduct. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned single Judge both the management and as well as workmen filed the appeals. 4. Sri. Kasturi, Learned senior counsel appearing for the management contended when once the misconduct was held to be proved, punishment has to be imposed. Denial of back wages is not punishment at all and therefore Labour Court committed a serious error in directing reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Having regard to the nature of the charge, that is disobedience, it was not just and proper to have interfered with the order of dismissal. 5. Per contra the workman pointed out that charge No. 3 held to be proved is not specific. It is an after thought. The evidence on record does not prove the said charge, Secondly it is contended that it is settled law that inordinate delay in settling the matter, the award passed by the Labour Court should be upheld without interference. There is No. legal evidence produced on record to substantiate the misconduct in respect of charge No. 3. Seen from any angle No. case of interference is made out. 6. From the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, it is clear as against three charges framed against the workmen only charge of insubordination is held to be proved. The Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence on record in so far as charge No. 3 is concerned held that the oral evidence of M.W.6 coupled with various materials placed on record and evidence of M.W.1 SH. Krishnegowda, M.W.2 Sri Narayanaswamy goes to establish that the workmen on August 29, 1991 at about 9.50 a.m. behaved rudely, and arrogantly with M.W.6 when questioned for coming late by ten minutes. It appears that the management is not very serious of the late coming of the first party but serious about rude and arrogant behaviour of the workmen. Workmen was not expected to behave rudely and arrogantly with the superior like M.W.6 only because he questioned him regarding his late coming. Oral evidence of M.W.6 and M.W.2 coupled with various documents on record goes to establish that the first party workmen misbehaved on August 29, 1991 at 9.50 a.m. near the office of M.W.6 in the second party institute. Oral evidence of M.W.6 and M.W.2 coupled with various documents on record goes to establish that the first party workmen misbehaved on August 29, 1991 at 9.50 a.m. near the office of M.W.6 in the second party institute. Thus the misconduct committed by the workmen amounts to insubordination and disobedience to the lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors. The said finding is upheld by the learned single Judge on reappreciation of the evidence on record. It is purely a question of fact. Therefore No. interference in this appeal is made out. 7. The Labour Court has also recorded a finding that a case of victimization and unfair labour practice is not established, which again is upheld by the learned single Judge, Therefore once misconduct is held to be proved victimization and unfair trade practice, is not established, punishment has to follow, Labour Court thought denial of back wages is one form of punishment. It is in this context judgment in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agarwal and Another 2007 SCC 433 : 2007 II LLJ 128 needs to be looked into, where it is held as under: What requires to be noted in cases where finding of misconduct is affirmed and only the punishment is interfered with (as contrasted from cases where termination is held to be illegal or void) is that there is No. automatic reinstatement; and if reinstatement is directed, it is not automatically with retrospective effect from the date of termination. Therefore where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct is held to be proved and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punching the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary retirement benefit and not for other benefits like increments, promotions etc. 8. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary retirement benefit and not for other benefits like increments, promotions etc. 8. The Labour Court has misdirected itself in thinking denial of back wages itself would constitute a punishment and for proof of misconduct that would be a punishment proportionate to the misconduct established.Therefore to that extent order of the Labour Court suffers from infirmity which requires to be set aside. Even learned single Judge has not thought this aspect from a proper perspective and erred in upholding the order of the Labour Court. 9. Therefore the question for our consideration is once misconduct is proved and Labour Court exercised power under Section 11(A) of the Act and directs reinstatement and reinstatement being a lesser punishment, what is the punishment to be imposed to the proved misconduct. We are told that the workmen has to retire in two years. He is not entitled to back wages on the principle of "No work No. pay". The misconduct now that is held to be established is insubordination, rude behaviour with the official/superior. It is not a case, which can be lightly ignored. Therefore in the facts of the case, we are of the view that justice would be met by imposing punishment of with holding of two annual increments cumulatively. To that extent the order passed by the Labour Court as well as learned single Judge is modified. Hence we pass the following order: ORDER 1. W.A. 2457/2010 is dismissed. 2. W.A. 379/2010 is partly allowed imposing punishment of with holding of two increments cumulatively. 10. Parties to bear their own costs.