Per Yaqoob, J.;— 1. The appellants admittedly were employees of respondent no. 1 (Company). On 7-10-1988, were working as General Duty Clerk in its branch at Shalimar Road, Jammu. They allegedly consumed liquor in the office of the Company at Shalimar Road, Jammu on 07.10.1988. Under the influence of liquor so consumed while coming out of the said office allegedly started quarreling, which gave rise to nuisance on the Shalimar Road, near City Chowk, Jammu, as a result thereof, both were arrested under Section 36 of the Police Act and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. On conviction have been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 50/each. 2. Respondent-Company placed the appellants under suspension. Thereafter requisite enquiry was conducted and finally their services were terminated. The appellants projected their grievances before the Conciliation Officer under the J&K Industrial Dispute Act, but failure of the conciliation culminated in referring the case to respondent no. 3. The termination orders have been quashed by Labour Court (respondent no. 3). 3. Dissatisfied with the order of respondent no. 3, respondent no. 1 company filed a Writ petition OWP No. 977/2002 and 976/2002, which have been allowed vide judgments impugned, termination of the appellants was held to be correct and the order passed by respondent no. 3 (Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court J&K, Jammu) was set aside. 4. By the medium of these Appeals, judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge have been assailed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants made various submissions and finally contended that the order of termination is disproportionate for the act committed. In support of his submissions, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled Jaswant Singh v. Pepsu Roadways Transport Corp. and another, AIR 1984 SC 355 and also on the judgment rendered in case titled Scooter India limited, Lucknow v. Labour Court Lucknow and others, AIR 1989 SC 149 . 6. In opposition, it is contended that for the act committed by the appellant, the order of termination was quite appropriate. 7. Actual occurrence i.e., consumption of liquor, creating nuisance in City Chowk, Jammu, police action followed by order of conviction for the offence under Section 36 of the Police Act and fine of Rs. 50/- each, passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu has not been challenged. 8. 7. Actual occurrence i.e., consumption of liquor, creating nuisance in City Chowk, Jammu, police action followed by order of conviction for the offence under Section 36 of the Police Act and fine of Rs. 50/- each, passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu has not been challenged. 8. The important aspect of the matter is, as to whether, appellants should be allowed to rotten or reformative approach would be proper. It is not only appellants but their family who shall be ultimate sufferers for no fault of theirs. Penalty for misconduct shall be adequate but not disproportionate. In the judgment titled Jaswant Singh v. Pepsu Roadways Transport Corpn and another (supra) a driver while on duty had consumed liquor, on enquiry was dismissed from service by the Corporation. Labour Court opined that punishment of dismissal from service is on the heavier side, reinstatement was ordered denying back wages. The said order was challenged before the Single Judge, which was set aside and punishment of dismissal was confirmed. Following portion of Para No. 4 of the judgment is relevant to be quoted:- "..we are of the opinion that the Labour Court was right and justified in directing reinstatement of the appellant in service. Further appellant is not entitled to back wages for the reasons that appealed to Labour Court. This is not adequate penalty for the misconduct proved. In our opinion to keep the appellant within the bounds of well-disciplined conduct a further punishment is also called for and should be imposed so that our humanistic approach may not induce him to repeat his intemperate performance. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant should not be given three increments in the time scale in which he would be reinstated, for the next three years. For all other benefits he will be treated as continuing in service. The appeal is allowed....." 9. In case titled Scooter India limited, Lucknow v. Labour Court Lucknow and others (Supra), the conduct of the workman was observed then keeping in view the circumstances of the said case, the back wages to the extent of 75% were allowed. The Hon'ble Apex Court maintained the order of the Labour Court. The appeal is allowed....." 9. In case titled Scooter India limited, Lucknow v. Labour Court Lucknow and others (Supra), the conduct of the workman was observed then keeping in view the circumstances of the said case, the back wages to the extent of 75% were allowed. The Hon'ble Apex Court maintained the order of the Labour Court. In this connection, it shall be quite relevant to quote following portion from Para No. 7 of the said judgment:- ".....It cannot therefore be said that the Labour Court had exercised its powers under Section 6 (2A) of the Act in an arbitrary manner and not in a judicial manner. The Labour Court has taken the view that justice must be tempered with mercy and that the erring workman should be given an opportunity to reform himself and prove to be a loyal and disciplined employee of the petitioner Company. It cannot therefore be said that merely because the Labour Court had found the enquiry to be fair and lawful and the findings not to be vitiated in any manner, it ought not to have interfered with the order of termination of service passed against the respondent in exercise of its powers under Section 6(2A) of the Act....." 10. In view of the law, as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the case of the appellants deserves to be considered with reformative approach. The punishment of termination from service is disproportionate, consumption of liquor and then coming out on the road side so as to create nuisance definitely is deplorable and unbecoming of a human being, but for such act if the employees are terminated from service, same shall be harsh as the same will adversely affect their family. Every law provides for action/punishment against any wrong or criminal offence proportionate to the gravity of the wrong/offence. 11. The ratio of the judgment titled Jaswant Singh v. Pepsu Roadways Transport Corp. and another (Supra) applies to the present case. The order passed by respondent No. 3 (Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court J&K, Jammu) for reinstatement without back wages shall not be adequate punishment for the misconduct committed by the appellants. 11. The ratio of the judgment titled Jaswant Singh v. Pepsu Roadways Transport Corp. and another (Supra) applies to the present case. The order passed by respondent No. 3 (Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court J&K, Jammu) for reinstatement without back wages shall not be adequate punishment for the misconduct committed by the appellants. Disciplined conduct has to be maintained and for inculcating in future the sense for maintaining proper conduct, some more punishment is required to be inflicted, therefore, appellants shall be reinstated without back wages till reinstatement and shall not be given four increments for the next four years. 12. The judgments impugned dated 13.11.2009 passed separately in each writ. petitions are set aside. Writ Petitions allowed to the extent indicated. 13. Appeals succeed and shall stand disposed of on the aforesaid terms.