ORDER A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether Central Government Industrial Tribunal having found that the workman was guilty of misconduct in an enquiry held in accordance with law, can direct payment of compensation by the management, in lieu of full and final settlement of the claim of a workman? The said question arises in the following factual matrix. B.H. Kakargal joined railway service as a Khalasi on 17.11.1962 and was promoted as Foreman Grade 'C' in the year 1968 and further promoted as Shunter/Driver in the year 1974 and as a driver in the year 1981 and as driver "B" in the year-1984. On 2.9.1987, when B.H. Kakargal was on duty as a driver in Train No. MU-4 UP Del Goods travelling from CNR to MAO station, an accident occurred. On 10.10.1987, he was served with a charge-sheet issued under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, on the allegation, that while he was functioning as a driver in Train No. MU-4 Up Del. Goods between, CNR and MAO Station on 2.9.1967, failed to observe the Engineering Speed Restriction Board at Km. 78/1-2 and to restrict the speed of his train to 30 KMPH applied break judiciously to control the speed looked back, frequently, to ensure that the train was running in a safe and proper manner. It was further alleged that he refused to give his blood for clinical analysis when was found under influence of Alcohol while on duty and that while taking the parted portion of the train to MAO station from the site of accident, failed to take a written permission and necessary instructions from the guard as per the correct procedure. B.H. Kakargal replied to the charge sheet and denied the allegations. The disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the explanation submitted, ordered for a domestic enquiry into the matter. The enquiry officer submitted a report. Copy of the enquiry report along with a show cause notice was served on B.H. Kakargal and upon consideration of the reply and the record of domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authority having found that the charged misconduct has been established, imposed on 26.2.1988, on B.H. Kakargal, a penalty of removal from service. An Appeal and Revision Petition filed having been dismissed, he raised a dispute. An Appeal and Revision Petition filed having been dismissed, he raised a dispute. The Central Government by exercise of its powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-sec. 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the dispute - Whether the management of South Central Railway, Hubli is justified in removing Shri B.H. Kakargal from service? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? on 28.3.1994, to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore for adjudication. 2. The workman filed claim statement and the management filed counter statement before CGIT. Based on the pleadings, following three issues were raised: (i) Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party Dy the second party is fair and proper? (ii) Whether the findings of the enquiry officer suffered from perversity, and if not? (iii) Whether the impugned punishment order removing the first party from his service was disproportionate to the charges of misconduct committed by him? 3. Issue No. 1 was treated as a preliminary issue. The enquiry officer was examined by the management as MW.1 and EX.M1 to M4 was marked. The workman having died on 7.11.1996, his L.R., was examined as WW1. By an award dated 27.8.2001, the reference was rejected. Wife of the deceased workman filed W.P. No. 43103/2001. By an order dated 6.3.2006, said award was quashed and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication, by giving opportunity to the deceased widow to substantiate the challenge to the order of dismissal. 4. The case having been taken up by the CGIT, the parties was given Opportunity to lead the evidence, both on the question of fairness and perversity of the domestic enquiry held and also on the merits of the case. The management did not lead further evidence. Wife of the deceased workman filed an affidavit. By an order dated 5.3.2007, issue No. 3 was answered in favour of the management by holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the deceased workman is fair and proper. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and considering the written arguments filed by the LR., of the deceased workman, the CGIT finding that there is correct appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by the enquiry officer and that there is valid and cogent reasoning, held that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer does not suffer from any perversity. Notwithstanding the aforesaid conclusion, tribunal interfered with the order of penalty, by observing as follows:-- 11. Now the question to be considered would be about the quantum of the punishment. There appears to be very much substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the first party that keeping in view the nature of the misconduct namely, the rash negligent driving committed by the first party and the fact that he was found under the influence of Alcohol at the time of driving, the punishment of removal from service borders on extremity particularly, in view of the fact that the first party rendered unblemished service of about 25 years with the management in different capacities and ultimately as a Driver-B having received promotions from time to time. Therefore, punishment of removal is liable to be set aside. 12. Now, since the workman died long back in the year 1996 itself, relief of reinstatement survives no more and the question of imposing upon him any minor punishment also will not be of any consequence having regard to the fact that he was removed from service as far back as on 29.2.1988, the proper and reasonable relief to be awarded to the LR., of the deceased in my opinion would be by way of compensation in lump sum. In the result, ends of justice will be met if she is awarded a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs in lump sum in lieu of full and final settlement of the claim of the deceased workman against the management. Assailing the said award this writ petition has been filed by the management. 5. Sri R.M. Kulkarni, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that: (i) the Tribunal has committed an error in invoking the power under Section 11-A of the Act, despite finding that the workman, who was a driver of a goods train, was found to be under the influence of alcohol and he has caused a derailment of a train, which has caused huge loss to the management. It was submitted that in view of the gravity of misconduct the only punishment that could have been imposed was that of removal from service, which having been imposed, could not have been interfered with. (ii) the award passed directing payment of Rs. It was submitted that in view of the gravity of misconduct the only punishment that could have been imposed was that of removal from service, which having been imposed, could not have been interfered with. (ii) the award passed directing payment of Rs. 2 lakhs as lump sum compensation is nothing but a gift to the workman, who was found guilty of gross misconduct which has resulted huge loss to the public exchequer. It was submitted that workman had been entrusted with highly responsible job of driving a train and had indulged in driving the train while under the influence of alcohol and thereby endangered the lives and properties of the citizens. (iii) the award under challenge being arbitrary and not in consonance with the well-settled principles of law in the matter of exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act, warrant interference. 6. Sri M.H. Bhat, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that this Court should not interfere with the impugned award, as imposition of punishment of removal from service was wholly disproportionate to the charge framed against the workman. He submitted that the workman having died on 7.11.1996, his LRs., are facing extreme hardship and in the circumstances the discretionary award passed by the Tribunal in exercise of power conferred on it under section 11-A of the Act does not warrant any interference. 7. Having heard the learned counsel on both the sides and having perused the record of the case, it is apparent that the Tribunal has completely misdirected itself in awarding compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs In lieu of full and final settlement of the claim of the workman. The Tribunal having arrived at the conclusion that the holding of the departmental enquiry was fair and proper and the order of removal was not by way of victimization and that the respondent workman had caused the accident of a train and had refused to give his blood for clinical analysis when he was found under the influence of alcohol while on duty and had taken the parted portion of the train to MAO Station from the site of accident. Without written permission and necessary instructions from the guard, was thus, guilty of gross misconduct, ought not to have interfered with the punishment which was awarded, in the manner the Tribunal has done. 8. Without written permission and necessary instructions from the guard, was thus, guilty of gross misconduct, ought not to have interfered with the punishment which was awarded, in the manner the Tribunal has done. 8. With reference to the power under section 11A of the Act, in the case of The Workmen of AIR 1973 SC 1227 , Apex Court has held that, once the misconduct is proved, the Tribunal has to sustain the order of punishment unless it was harsh, indicating victimisation. It has been further held therein as follows: If a proper enquiry is conducted by an employer and a correct finding arrived at regarding the misconduct, the Tribunal, even though it has now power to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the management, will have to give very cogent reasons for not accepting the view of the employer. Emphasis supplied 9. In the case of Christian Medical College Hospital Employees' Union and Another Vs. Christian Medical College Vellore Association and Others, AIR 1988 SC 37 , Apex Court has held as follows: Section 11A of the Act cannot be considered as conferring an arbitrary power on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court. The power under Section 11A has to be exercised judicially and the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court is expected to interfere with the decision of a management under Section 11A only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. Emphasis supplied 10. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. R. Dhandapani, AIR 2006 SC 615 , Apex Court has held as follows: 9. though under Section 11-A, the Tribunal has the power to reduce the quantum of punishment it has to be done within the parameters of law. Possession of power is itself not sufficient; it has to be exercised in accordance with law. Emphasis supplied The award passed by the Tribunal, directing payment of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation to the LRs., of the deceased workman, despite its finding with regard to the gross misconduct committed by the workman is wholly unjustified. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justifiable reason for the Tribunal to have passed the award, directing the management to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation to the LRs., of the deceased workman. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justifiable reason for the Tribunal to have passed the award, directing the management to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation to the LRs., of the deceased workman. Keeping in view the nature of misconduct committed by the workman, which has been held as proved even by the Tribunal, I am unable to accept that the punishment imposed by the management was in any way disproportionate, to warrant interference by the Tribunal in the facts and situation, noticed supra, the Tribunal has acted arbitrarily in exercising the power under section 11A of the Act. The award passed by the Tribunal directing payment of compensation is clearly unwarranted and is contrary to the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions mentioned supra. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and award passed by the Tribunal dated 3.9.2007, as at Annexure-A, is quashed. Penalty of removal from service imposed by the management against the workman on 26.2.1988 is restored. No costs.