JUDGMENT : Challenging an award dated 1-8-2006 - Annexure P/12, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No.CGIT/L.C/R/2 19/91, answering the reference in favour of the Workman concerned, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/management. 2.Respondents herein are the Legal Heirs of deceased workman Shri Shiv Charan Choudhary, who was working as a Postal Assistant in the office of Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Sagar.It seems that Shri S.C.Choudhary while in service was transferred from Sagar to Narsinghgarh in the year 1988 and, therefore, he raised a TA Bill on 23-9-1988 along with certain claim for domestic luggage transportation in Truck Bearing No.MPA-5657 and raised a claim of Rs.600/-.An objection was raised by the competent authority of the department to the bill on various grounds and ultimately it was found that the bill has been raised in an illegal manner and in spite of the fact that the amount has not been spent, a false claim has been made.Accordingly, a preliminary inquiry was conducted into the matter and finding a prima facie case established departmental proceedings were held.In the departmental proceedings it seems that the workman Shri S.C.Choudhary admitted the allegations levelled against him, contended that he had no intention to defraud the Department and pleading ignorance and making submissions with regard to his poverty, sought to be exonerated.On the basis of the material that came on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report and based on this report, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of reduction of pay by three stages in the pay scale in question with effect from 1-11-1989 and accordingly the order of punishment was given effect to with effect from 1-11-1989, after withdrawing three increments granted, pay of Shri S.C.Choudhary was reduced from Rs.1150/-to Rs.1075/-and the punishment order was given effect to.Late Shri S.C.Choudhary accepted the punishment and did not challenge the same. 3.Things stood as indicated hereinabove when the Director of Postal Services issued a show-cause notice on 6-1-1990 exercising the powers conferred upon him under Rule 9(1 )(v) read with sub-rule (b) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and it was indicated in the show-cause notice that for the alleged misconduct established, the punishment imposed is too less and proposed enhancement of punishment to that of compulsory retirement.Late Shri S.C.Choudhary submitted his reply to the same and finding the same to be unsustainable, order - Annexure P/2 was passed by the competent authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement.This order dated 4-5-1990 became the subject-matter of challenge in an Industrial Dispute raised on behalf of Late Shri S.C.Choudhary and when the conciliation failed, the matter was initially referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur and the said Tribunal passed an award on 16-4-1996 by answering the reference against the workman concerned and held that the action of the competent authority is legal and proper and no interference is called for.Annexure P/6 is a copy of the award passed on 16-4-1996. 4.Aggrieved by this award Late Shri S.C.Choudhary filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.1887/2001 and after hearing all concerned vide order-dated 2-2-2006 - Annexure P/9, a Bench of this Court found that the learned competent authority namely the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Sagar while issuing the enhanced punishment of compulsory retirement has not appreciated the totality of the circumstances properly, he has not given any cogent and specific reason and, therefore, set aside the first award dated 16-4-1996 and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.In pursuance to the remand made by this Court, the Tribunal has again reconsidered the whole issue and has answered the reference by the award in question dated 1-8-2006 - Annexure P/12 and, therefore, challenge is now made to the award by the petitioners/management. 5.Shri O.P.Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that before the Tribunal six issues were framed.Issue Nos.1 to 4 are related to the validity of the departmental inquiry conducted, the findings and all other issues have been answered in favour of the Management, but the power exercised under Rule 29 is only interfered with on the ground that the punishment of compulsory retirement could not be imposed.It is argued by Shri O.P.Namdeo that once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the departmental inquiry was properly conducted and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer was also legal and proper then the question of punishment should have been left to be decided by the competent authority of the department and the Industrial Tribunal had no authority to interfere with the question of punishment and set aside the order passed by the revisional authority.In doing so, it is argued by Shri O.P.Namdeo that an error has been committed by the authority concerned and, therefore, the same be interfered with. 6.Shri O.P.Namdeo, learned counsel, emphasized that once the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that a proper departmental inquiry is conducted and based on the evidence action is taken, then merely because the punishment of compulsory retirement is too harsh or operates to the dis-advantage of the employee concerned in various ways, interference by the Tribunal was not called for.It was his submission that the learned Tribunal has acted in excess of jurisdiction in the matter and, therefore, this petition be allowed. 7.Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, refuted the aforesaid contention and referring to the reasons given by the Tribunal for interfering with the order of the revisional authority, argued that the Tribunal has clearly indicated that the revisional authority did not want or did not desire to impose the punishment of removal or dismissal from service and as in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case even when the order of compulsory retirement had the effect of dismissal of removal from service, interference into the matter is not called for.Shri Kathar, learned counsel, emphasized that a reasonable finding recorded by the Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, does not call for any interference and, therefore, Shri Kathar submits that the petition be dismissed. 8.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. 8.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. 9.It is a case where the employee submitted a false TA Claim for Rs.600/-, but before the claim could be scrutinized and payment made, certain defects were detected and the payment stopped.Be it as it may be, when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the employee pleaded for mercy and taking note of the totality of the circumstances, the punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 19-10-1989, as indicated hereinabove.The punishment was of reduction of pay by three stages in the same time scale of pay of and the punishment order was given effect to in its letter and spirit with effect from 1-11-1999.The pay of the employee was reduced and he accepted the punishment without any objection.While the things so stood, the revisional authority thought it appropriate to enhance the punishment and issued a show-cause notice proposing to exercise powers conferred upon him under Rule 29 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules.In the show-cause notice issued by the revisional authority, it was the considered view of the revisional authority that the punishment is too dis-proportionate or less compared to the allegations levelled and, therefore, he wanted to enhance the punishment.At the same time, after the show-cause notice was replied to and after he had examined the entire matter in its totality, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that for the allegations proved and established the punishment of dismissal or removal from service is not proper and should not be imposed.He, however, came to the conclusion that the lenient option of compulsory retirement should be exercised and accordingly the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed.However, while doing so, the authority lost sight of the fact that compulsory retirement in the facts and circumstances of the present case had the effect of dismissal or removal from service inasmuch as the employee concerned had not completed the qualifying service to earn pension and even if he was compulsorily retired, he would not get pension or post retiral benefits and, therefore, in sum and substance the punishment would be not less than removal or dismissal from service.It was under such circumstances that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court came to the conclusion that the revisional authority has imposed the punishment without taking note of these factors and, therefore, finding there to be non-application of mind and a mechanical act on the part of the revisional authority, interference has been made by the Tribunal. 10.In doing so, the discretion exercised by the learned Industrial Tribunal and the reasons given thereof cannot be termed as perverse, unreasonable or unjustified to such an extent that interference can be made by this Court.A power is conferred on the Tribunal under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, to interfere with such orders and modify the orders and if such a power is exercised in a reasonable and justifiable manner without committing any statutory violation, interference into such discretion by this Court exercising limited jurisdiction in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not called for. 11.There is another aspect of the matter which has to be taken note of When the original punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority on 19-10-1989, the punishment was given effect to from 1-11-1989, the employee's salary was reduced by more than three stages and from November, 1989 upto February 1990, for more than five months he underwent the punishment. That being so, it is a case where the punishment was already given effect to and when the employee accepted the punishment without any objection, it has been enhanced by the revisional authority that also without taking note of various important aspects of the matter, which have been highlighted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the revisional authority himself wanted to impose punishment which would not deprive the employee of pension or other benefits, but the revisional authority having interfered into the matter without taking note of the consequence of his order, the Tribunal has interfered into the same. In doing so, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has not committed any error which warrants interference, particularly now when the employee has died and the parties before this Court are his widowed wife about 45 years of age and her minor daughters and an unemployed son about 20 years of age, who are only to get some monetary benefit after death of a low paid employee. 12.In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. 12.In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. 13.Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter and upholding the award passed by the Tribunal, this petition is dismissed.As a consequence thereof, the benefits accruing to Late Shri S.C.Choudhary, after implementing the original order of punishment dated 19-10-1989, be extended now to his Legal Representatives. Action for conferring the benefit be undertaken and the entire benefits accruing be granted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14.Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Petition dismissed.