JUDGMENT : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. 1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 192/2001 is filed by the Appellant-workman and Letters Patent Appeal No. 352/2001 is filed by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation-employer challenging the common judgment and order January 11, 2001 passed by learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10816/2000 filed by the workman and Special Civil Application No. 8742/2000 filed by the employer-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. 2. Facts in brief leading to filing these appeals deserve to be set out as under: The Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 192/2001 is hereinafter referred in this, judgment and order as workman for the sake of convenience and Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 352/2001 is hereinafter referred in this judgment and order as employer for the sake of convenience. 3. The workman was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation w.e.f. November 1, 1967. The workman had worked for more than 20 years with the employer.. The workman was suspended from his service w.e.f. April 15, 1988. Before issuing the suspension order, no show cause notice whatsoever was given to the workman. On June 22, 1988, the charge-sheet came to be issued to the workman making certain allegations against him and thereafter after holding the inquiry, the service of the workman came to be terminated w.e.f. April 30, 1990. 4. The resultant order of penalty was assailed by workman by preferring Civil Suit No. 2142/1990 on May 5, 1990, which came to be disposed of by the Court on July 30, 1993 as it did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue with regard to the workman. Thereafter, workman raised Industrial Dispute, which came to be referred to the Court, wherein, it was numbered as Reference (LCA) No. 277/1994. The workman gave up his contention with regard to conducting of inquiry but maintained his stand that findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were perverse. The Court after recording its reason for interfering with the order of punishment and as the workman was almost on the verge of attaining the age of superannuation, ordered payment of 25% of back wages of the workman with continuity of service and 500/- costs vide judgment and award dated December 18, 1999. Against the said judgment and award, the workman filed Special Civil Application No. 10816/2000 and employer had filed Special Civil Application No. 8742/2000. Against the said judgment and award, the workman filed Special Civil Application No. 10816/2000 and employer had filed Special Civil Application No. 8742/2000. The learned single Judge by his common judgment and order dated January 11, 2001 was pleased to dispose of both the Special Civil Applications filed by parties modifying the order and imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect and modified the quantum of back wages from 25% to 10% and maintained the award of Labour Court with regard to granting of continuity of service so as to entitle the workman to receive retiral benefits. 5. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. 6. Learned advocate appearing for workman contended that learned Judge ought not to have interfered with the order of Labour Court especially the Labour Court has recorded its findings with regard to bias in imposing punishment. Relying upon the decision in case of Jitendra Singh Rathor Vs. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. and Another, AIR 1984 SC 976 she submitted that when the Labour Court has observed his terminated u/s 11-A, High Court would not be justified in substituting its own award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. She further relief upon the decision in case of Randhir Singh v. Labour Court and Ors., 1998 3 LLJ 620 (P&H) and submitted that once the dismissal is held to be illegal, the reinstatement and back wages are not to be denied. She further submitted that the Labour Court ought to have awarded 100% back-wages. 7. Learned advocate appearing for the employer submitted that the Labour Court had committed an error by awarding backwages to the workman. In view of the fact that the Labour had come to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the workman had been proved in the departmental proceedings, the Labour Court should not have interfered with the order of punishment. He also submitted that the workman had not performed his duties, the workman is not entitled to any amount by way of back-wages and therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have awarded 25% of back-wages to the workman. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant papers. 9. It is required to be noted at this stage that before the Labour Court the workman expressly gave up his challenge to the conducting of the inquiry. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant papers. 9. It is required to be noted at this stage that before the Labour Court the workman expressly gave up his challenge to the conducting of the inquiry. The workman chose to give up the right to challenge the inquiry meaning thereby, the workman did not dispute the fact that inquiry was conducted in accordance with law. The workman, however, chose to challenge the findings of the Inquiry Officer on the ground that they are perverse. This Court therefore, was required to be borne in mind that the workman had given up the challenge to the conducting of the inquiry. Now looking to the charges and findings of the Labour Court, it can well be said that the Labour Court did not appreciate this aspect and went on in the merits of conducting of inquiry. 10. The Labour Court has recorded that the workman was facing charges like preparing pay bill for a doctor instead of another doctor and after crediting the wages changed the pay bill without bringing it to the notice of his superior for camouflaging his serious misconduct, despite given instructions by the Superior, workman did not prefer roster register, the workman was responsible for not making payment of one compounder despite his resigning and passing of two years of time, some employees gratuity and PF money were also not paid for quite sometime. The serious lapses on the part of the workman were noticed which amounted to serious misconduct. He was not even furnishing information requisitioned by the superior, many employees did not receive their retiral dues and money in time on account of lapses on the part of delinquent workman. The Labour Court has recorded in para-12 that after recording the testimony of the witnesses mentioned thereunder, some of the allegations were proved. The Labour Court has however, considered the workman's recent transfer to the place as extenuating circumstances and has also considered the factum of no guidance from the superior for the workman for considering the punishment of removal to be disproportionate. Non-issuance of memo at the relevant time has also been considered by the Labour Court to be militating against the imposition of punishment of removal. Non-issuance of memo at the relevant time has also been considered by the Labour Court to be militating against the imposition of punishment of removal. Labour Court has observed that delinquency was recorded for the year 1987-88 only and prior thereto there was no delinquency on the part of workman. All these factors have been taken into consideration by the Labour Court for exercising its discretion vested by the Court u/s 11-A of the I.D. Act and Labour Court has recorded that as the workman had attained the age of 57 years when he was called on to be deposed on December 8, 1998 and as he has attained the age of 58 years on December 8, 1999, he was ordered to be paid 25% of backwages and considered the year of 1999 to be order of retirement, ordered payment of retiral dues on that basis. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law that punishment if substituted by the Labour Court in exercise of its discretion u/s 11-A, then, the High Court need not interfere with the same but in the instant case, the aforesaid delinquency as recorded by the Labour Court and lack of reasoning on the part of Labour Court appears to have persuaded to have the learned single Judge in substituting the penalty. We are of the considered opinion that order of learned single Judge need no interference as looking to the delinquency and the lack of reasoning on the part of Labour Court, would go to justify the order of learned single Judge. The delinquency as such was so serious as to warrant serious punishment as on account of lapses on the part of workman, the payment of gratuity and other retiral dues were not paid to the employees in time. This delinquency could not have been looked into any sympathy or ought not to have been merited any lighter punishment. However, we at this stage in Letters Patent Appeal, when order of learned single Judge is dated January 11, 2001, which is under challenge, do not deem it fit to alter the same in any manner. Appeals therefore fail and hereby dismissed.