JUDGMENT : JAYANT M. PATEL, J. 1. Admit. Mr. Hardik Rawal waives notice for respondent. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard. 2. The only question to be considered in the present appeal is whether the relief could be granted in the Special Civil Application larger than what was not the subject matter in the petition. 3. The short facts are that on 14.5.1993, there was an accident of ST bus and as a result thereof, there was death of one person and the injuries were caused to the passenger. The departmental inquiry was initiated against the driver appellant herein and vide order dated 18.4.1994, punishment was imposed of stoppage of three increments with permanent effect. The appellant carried the matter in departmental appeal before the first authority and second appellate authority. Ultimately, the said punishment was reduced to stoppage of one increment with future effect and without benefit of arrears. The appellant being aggrieved by the said decision, raised dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. The said dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal ultimately passed award whereby the reference was allowed and the penalty imposed of withholding of one increment with future effect was set aside and the Tribunal directed payment of all consequential benefits. The respondent Corporation being aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal, preferred S.C.A. No. 10347 of 2004, which came to be heard by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, at the conclusion of the hearing, found that appropriate penalty would be stoppage of two increments with future effect and therefore, not only the order of the Tribunal was set aside, but the penalty was modified to stoppage of two increments with future effect. It is under these circumstances, the appellant has approached to this Court by preferring the present appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Supehia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. It is an undisputed position that so far as the Corporation is concerned, the ultimate penalty by the authority was stoppage of one increment with future effect. The said penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect was the subject matter of adjudication before the Tribunal. Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. It is an undisputed position that so far as the Corporation is concerned, the ultimate penalty by the authority was stoppage of one increment with future effect. The said penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect was the subject matter of adjudication before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as such could not go into the proportionality of penalty, more particularly when the charges were proved, since punishment could not be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved which may call for interference by the Tribunal in exercise of the power u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, had the learned single Judge exercised the power to the extent of setting aside the award of the Tribunal by maintaining the penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect, the exercise of the power could be said as well within the jurisdiction, since the subject matter was whether the award of the Tribunal could be maintained or not. We also find that the exercise of the power by the Tribunal u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act in a matter where the charges were found proved were uncalled for because penalty imposed was stoppage of one increment with future effect, which could not be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved. 6. However, the exercise of the power for substituting the penalty by enhancing the penalty from stoppage of one increment with future effect to stoppage of two increment with future effect could be said as not only beyond the scope of the petition but could also be said as beyond jurisdiction. The reason is that this Court in S.C.A. No. 10347 of 2004 was exercising the power relating to the subject matter before the Tribunal. The subject matter before the Tribunal was whether the penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect could be termed as proper or not. Even if the reference is dismissed of the Workman-appellant herein, the penalty already imposed of stoppage of one increment with future effect could be said to have continued. There was no subject matter before the Labour Court as to whether the penalty should be enhanced or not. Even if the reference is dismissed of the Workman-appellant herein, the penalty already imposed of stoppage of one increment with future effect could be said to have continued. There was no subject matter before the Labour Court as to whether the penalty should be enhanced or not. Consequently, such would not be the subject matter in a petition when the order was for challenging the award passed by the Tribunal for setting aside the penalty of stoppage of one increment. Therefore, it appears to us that the order for enhancement of the penalty from stoppage of one increment with future effect to stoppage on two increments with future effect was by exceeding the jurisdiction which was not the subject matter of the petition. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is set aside. The order passed by the learned single Judge is modified to the effect that the penalty as was imposed by the Corporation of stoppage of one increment with future effect without benefit of arrears would continue. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.