JUDGMENT 1. - This petition for writ is directed against the award dated 18.9.1997, passed by learned Labour Court, Jaipur in Labour Case Reference No. 235/1988.In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent workman, under an order dated 25.6.1980, entered in service of the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the RTDC") being appointed as Room Attendant. He was subjected to a disciplinary action as per Regulation 9 of the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1980- (hereinafter referred to "the Regulations of 1980") with the allegation that while working in the capacity of Room Attendant at RTDC Midway, Behrod, on 13.5.1985 at about 2:50 P.M., when one Smt. Kamlesh Devi, an employee of the RTDC was cleaning the ladies bathroom, he indulged in indecent conduct with her. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of inquiry officer and other relevant record of inquiry, held the respondent workman guilty of the charge and imposed a penalty of removal from service vide order dated 29.3.1986. A review petition preferred by the respondent workman as per Regulation 25 of the Regulations of 1980 also came to be dismissed by the Board of Directors of the RTDC. An industrial dispute, thus, was raised and that was referred by appropriate Government to the Labour Court, Jaipur for adjudication under a notification dated 29.11.1988. The dispute so raised was in the terms that "whether removal of workman Shri Chander Singh, Room Attendant, Sanchar Bhawan, House No. 1824, Khawas Ji Ka Rasta, Jaipur, by Managing Director, Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd./Jaipur under the order dated 29.3.1986 is just and valid? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled? 2. A statement of claim was filed by the workman with assertion that his removal from service was not in accordance with law and further that the penalty imposed was in excess to the misconduct established. 3. In written, the RTDC came forward with a case that the entire inquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of applicable Regulations and all necessary opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself. It was also asserted that the misconduct proved was of quite serious nature, before, the penalty of removal from service cannot be termed as excessive. 4. It was also asserted that the misconduct proved was of quite serious nature, before, the penalty of removal from service cannot be termed as excessive. 4. Learned Labour Court, after examining the entire evidence available on record arrived at the conclusion that no error was committed by the disciplinary authority while holding the respondent workman guilty for the misconduct alleged, however, while examining the quantum of punishment imposed, but looking to the fact that the workman tendered apology immediately after commission of misconduct, the penalty of removal from service was excessive. Accordingly, the same was substituted by a penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. 5. While assailing the award impugned, it is submitted that once the Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the inquiry conducted against the workman was in accordance with law and the misconduct alleged stood prove, then no interference with the penalty imposed could have been made. According to learned Counsel, the Labour Court could have interfered with the penalty only in the event of it being shockingly excessive than the guilty established, but in the instant matter the misconduct of the petitioner was pertaining to molestation of a co-worker and that being quite serious, the penalty of removal could have not been treated excessive. 6. While meeting with the argument advanced, it is submitted by Counsel for the respondent workman that while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is required to be made if the order passed by the Court subordinate or the authority concerned is not perverse. In the case in hand, the Labour Court exercised jurisdiction and the discretion vested with it as per section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that in no manner suffers from any such error that may warrant interference of this Court. It is further submitted that the co-worker Smt. Kamlesh Devi while deposing before the inquiry officer has not stated anything on basis of that any misconduct on part of the respondent No. 3 can be inferred and as a matter of fact the incident in question and the happening whatever taken place was just a minor issue and to meet such delinquency the penalty imposed by the Labour Court is quite reasonable.Heard Counsel for the parties. 7. 7. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 gives a wide discretion a Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal with a direction for reinstatement of workman in service and also to award lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal from service. However, for doing so the adjudicating forum has to be satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. Such satisfaction can be arrived only by examining the material available on record. The Tribunal while exercising powers under section 11-A is also having authority to reappraise the evidence adduced in the domestic Inquiry. 8. In the instant matter, learned Labour Court, after examining the entire evidence available on record, arrived at a definite conclusion about commission of misconduct by the delinquent workman. The Labour Court while affirming the finding of guilt given by the disciplinary authority interfered with the penalty imposed by holding the same excessive. The only reason given to held that excessive is that the respondent workman tendered apology at first instance. True it is, the respondent workman tendered the apology immediately on making complaint by the co-employee to higher authorities, but that neither absolves him from the charge of misconduct nor that pacifies the gravity of misconduct. The nature of the misconduct established, is quite serious and any other penalty than the removal from service would not have been adequate and a reasonable to mitigate the ills of conduct. The respondent workman while on duty tried to molest a co-woman employee and such conduct by no stretch of imagination can be termed as an act that may be condoned on tendering apology. Molestation of a woman employee by a co-workman does not require any sympathy and leniency while selecting penalty. The sympathy shown in this matter, thus, is highly misplaced. 9. The writ petition, hence deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The award impugned dated 18.9.1997 is set aside. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 29.3.1986 stands restored. The reference made by the appropriate Government is answered in the terms that removal of the workman under the order dated 29.3.1986 was just and proper and the workman is not at all entitled for any relief.No order to costs.Petition Allowed. *******