JUDGMENT : A.M. Shaffique, J. The petitioner bank challenges Ext. P9 award passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam in ID No. 22/06. The award came to be passed on a reference made by the Central Government u/s 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudicating the following reference. Whether the punishment of disposal imposed by the management of Federal Bank Ltd. to Smt. Kanniammal justified and proportionate to the alleged misconduct? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled to? The facts involved in the case discloses that Kanniamrnal was employed at the head office of the petitioner bank as Part-Time Sweeper. Her duty time was from 7.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. According to the Bank, she attended duty on 19.11.2001 in an inebriated condition in violation of bipartite settlement/rules of the Bank. She reported at 7.30 a.m. but was found lying on the floor of the sixth floor of the Head Office building in an unconscious stage at about 9 a.m. while on duty. When the officers enquired, she said, she was suffering from head ache. The Manager felt that she was in an intoxicated stage under the influence of alcohol. She was taken to K.M.K. Hospital, blood sample was taken and the report indicated intoxication of alcohol. It is reported that she used to consume alcohol almost daily. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts which amounted to gross misconduct of being drunk on the premises of the Bank and her earlier conducts showed unauthorised absence on several times and even during duty hours, a charge sheet was issued on 6.1.2002 for the misconduct of being drunk in the premises of the Bank. Since she remained unauthorisedly absent without leave, another charge memo was issued on 9.3.2002. An enquiry was conducted. Ext. P5 is the report of the enquiry. It was found that the misconducts were proved and the disciplinary authorities proposed punishment of dismissal without notice for drunkenness on the premises of the Bank during duty hours and stoppage of increment for a period of six months for neglect of work and for unauthorized absence without leave. Ext. P6 is the order of dismissal. Thereafter, the industrial dispute had arisen. 2. The Union filed a claim statement against which a statement is filed by the Bank before the Labour Court. 3. Ext. P6 is the order of dismissal. Thereafter, the industrial dispute had arisen. 2. The Union filed a claim statement against which a statement is filed by the Bank before the Labour Court. 3. After considering the evidence, the Labour Court found that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the worker was drunk and unconscious while on duty was not proved as the Doctor was not examined during the enquiry. In regard to the unauthorized absence and skipping of duty during duty hours, findings in the enquiry were sustained. Taking such a view, the Labour Court set aside the punishment of dismissal and directed the Bank to reinstate the worker in service with back wages and confirmed the punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of six months. 4. This finding is challenged by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis of findings of the Labour Court is totally incorrect. There is no allegation that opportunity was not given to the workman during enquiry. Perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer clearly indicates that MW18 medical certificate and MW19 blood test report clearly prove alcohol estimation of 85 mg/dl which is sub clinical intoxication. Opinion of the Doctor is that worker had consumed alcohol. At this point, one cannot forget about the fact that the Manager has clearly stated in evidence that at around 9 a.m. Mr. M.S. Varghese, Manager Administration informed him that he had seen the delinquent employee lying on the sixth floor in an unconscious stage and on enquiry she told him that she was suffering from head ache and he felt that she was in intoxicated stage under the influence of alcohol. The Enquiry Officer has proceeded on the basis that there is no reason to doubt the evidence of MW2, who in his evidence had also stated that he had also the smell of alcohol from the concerned employee. So it is based on evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer that he had come to a finding that the employee had committed misconduct and had consumed alcohol during duty hours. 5. So it is based on evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer that he had come to a finding that the employee had committed misconduct and had consumed alcohol during duty hours. 5. While considering the enquiry report and the evidence on record, Labour Court ought to have considered the fact that a person who has consumed alcohol and was lying unconscious on account of consumption of alcohol in a Bank and that too in the Head Office of the Bank, whether the punishment imposed was in any way disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. It is true that the Doctor was not examined in the case. Nobody has a case that the reports produced by the Management were not genuine. In an enquiry proceedings, Evidence Act has no application and it is enough that necessary opportunity is given to the employee to contest the matter. It can be seen from the enquiry report that sufficient opportunity had been given to the worker to contest the matter and there is no reason for the Labour Court to have interfered with the enquiry report. 6. The next question is whether the punishment given was in any way disproportionate to the misconduct proved in the case. As already indicated, the incident happened in the head office of the Bank where several customers and dignitaries used to visit and to see an employee in the Bank in an intoxicated stage or even with smell of alcohol is very disturbing which will affect the reputation and interest of an institution. That being the situation, I do not find that the punishment given by the management was in any way disproportionate to the charges levelled. For the above reasons Ext. P9 is liable to be set aside. 7. It is submitted that during the pendency of the above writ petition, worker had already received benefits and she is over the age of superannuation. In the above circumstances, I set aside Ext. P9 order and if any benefits had already been given to the worker during the pendency of the writ petition, no steps may be taken by the Bank to recover the same. Writ petition is therefore allowed as above.