ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present petition is directed against the judgement and award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCV) No.168 of 1993, whereby the Labour Court has awarded reinstatement with 50% back-wages. 2. The short facts of the case are that the respondent was working as boiler attendant in the unit of the petitioner. On 15.12.1992 when the pressure of the water in the boiler had gone down, as a result thereof, the boiler had stopped functioning. Thereafter, it was found that the water pump was not functioning. The electrician was called and he found that the wires of the timer were out. He inserted the wires. As a result thereof, the water pump had started functioning, which resulted into inlet of the water in the boiler and the boiler was damaged. Such incident together with one earlier incident was made as a basis for issuance of charge-sheet by the petitioner to the respondent for misconduct of habitual neglect of work, gross or habitual negligence, willful damage to work of the establishment, etc. The charges were denied and the inquiry officer was appointed. Before the inquiry officer, the evidence was led. However, it appears from the record that after the cross-examination of all the witnesses, the inquiry officer recorded the statement of the respondent and asked the question as to whether the respondent is desirous to examine any witness or produce any evidence, which was denied by the respondent. The inquiry should have stopped there, but the inquiry officer, of his own, put certain questions to the respondent and thereafter the inquiry was concluded. The inquiry officer submitted the report, finding guilt of the respondent. Based on the same, the respondent was terminated from service. The dispute was raised under the Industrial Disputes Act, which came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, the finding of the inquiry officer was not accepted by the respondent workman but the inquiry was accepted. The Labour Court, upon re- appreciation of evidence before the inquiry officer, found that the finding of the inquiry officer was not proper and defective and the Labour Court also found that the incident happened for bona fide mistake on the part of the workman and by not applying appropriate care well in time. The Labour Court, upon re- appreciation of evidence before the inquiry officer, found that the finding of the inquiry officer was not proper and defective and the Labour Court also found that the incident happened for bona fide mistake on the part of the workman and by not applying appropriate care well in time. The Labour Court found that the punishment for not allowing the salary for the period during which the employee remained unemployed appears to be appropriate. But as there was no evidence on record that he was gainfully employed, 50% back-wages was found to be appropriate. Ultimately, the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement with 50% back-wages Under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr. Thakkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondent is served, but none appears on his behalf. 4. Mr.Thakkar, learned Counsel at the first instance orally prayed to join Labour Court as party respondent on the premise that as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, if the Labour Court is not joined as party, Letters Patent Appeal would not be maintainable. However, he is unable to satisfy the Court that the petition is for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under these circumstances, I find that his oral request to join Labour Court as party, that too, at the time of final hearing of the petition, cannot be granted. Hence, the said prayer is rejected. 5. On the merits of the petition, the learned Counsel submitted that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse to the record, inasmuch as the evidence, which ought to have been considered by the Labour Court has not been properly considered. It was submitted that the finding of the inquiry officer was proper and Labour Court ought not to have recorded the finding that the conclusion of the inquiry officer is illegal or defective. The learned Counsel alternatively submitted that taking into consideration the facts of the present case, 50% back-wages ought not to have been awarded by the Labour Court. 6. The perusal of the reasons recorded by the Labour Court, after considering the entire evidence before the inquiry officer shows that the finding of the Labour Court that the conclusion of the inquiry officer was defective could not be said to be perverse to the record. 6. The perusal of the reasons recorded by the Labour Court, after considering the entire evidence before the inquiry officer shows that the finding of the Labour Court that the conclusion of the inquiry officer was defective could not be said to be perverse to the record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has read the entire evidence before the inquiry officer and the finding so recorded by the inquiry officer and upon re-appreciation thereof, it is not possible to accept the contention that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse to the record. It appears that elaborate discussion is not required in this regard, but apart from the observations made by the Labour Court in the impugned award, the fact remains that the inquiry officer, after the evidence of the management was over, has put certain questions of his own, that too, after declaration was made by the respondent that he was not desirous to examine any witness or to lead evidence in support of his defence. It is hardly required to be stated that the role of the inquiry officer is as that of quasi judicial authority. The impartiality in all respect is the essence of his function. He at the most has power to put certain questions to any witness, who has been examined or cross-examined by way of his pro-active role, but he has no such power if the employee in defence has not entered the witness box or has not led any evidence. In spite of the same, the inquiry officer has exceeded the jurisdiction. The aforesaid, in my view, is an additional ground to support the ultimate conclusion of the Labour Court that the finding of the conclusion recorded by the inquiry officer could be said as defective. 7. It appears that the Labour Court, thereafter, has further appreciated the evidence on record and the Labour Court found that in past such incident has not happened and the bypass system was discontinued and thereafter also, no such incident had happened. It was found that the single incident could be said as on account of no proper timely care taken by the workman and it appears to be bona fide mistake. The Labour Court, after reaching the said findings, has entered into the aspect of proportionately of punishment and has found awarding of 50% back-wages and reinstatement. It was found that the single incident could be said as on account of no proper timely care taken by the workman and it appears to be bona fide mistake. The Labour Court, after reaching the said findings, has entered into the aspect of proportionately of punishment and has found awarding of 50% back-wages and reinstatement. As such, if the finding of the Labour Court stands for bona fide mistake and no proper care on the part of the workman, the fact remains that the employer has also sustained financial loss. No proper evidence has come on record about the actual loss, because the second boiler was used for continuing with the manufacturing process, but the expenses of repairing of the first boiler, which had failed could be termed as the expenses sustained by the employer. The exact quantification of the amount for expenses of repairing has not come on record. Since it was found to be a bona fide mistake by the Labour Court upon appreciation of evidence on record and since it was also found by the Labour Court that the employer has sustained loss on account of the same, no specific reasons are mentioned by the Labour Court for curtailing the back-wages only to the extent of 50%. In my view, even if it is a bona fide mistake, but the fact is that the loss was sustained by the employer. Therefore, it should be more than 50% of the back-wages by way of punishment. It is true that the power under Section 11A of the Act can be exercised in a case where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, but in a case where the Labour Court has exercised the power under Section 11A by not considering the sound principle of judicial discretion, it would be a case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as curtailing of 50% salary of an employee, which has committed bona fide mistake and on account of such bona fide mistake, the financial loss is caused to the employer could not be said to be appropriate. Taking into consideration that the expenses of repairing was of a very costly machine of boiler, it appears that it would be appropriate to curtail the back-wages of 75%, instead of 50% as ordered by the Labour Court. 8. Taking into consideration that the expenses of repairing was of a very costly machine of boiler, it appears that it would be appropriate to curtail the back-wages of 75%, instead of 50% as ordered by the Labour Court. 8. Under these circumstances, the award passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement in service by giving continuity in service is maintained. However, so far as back-wages are concerned, the same shall be to the extent of 25% only and not 50% as awarded by the Labour Court. 9. The petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.