JUDGMENT : Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. This appeal is directed against the order of the Single Bench dated 29.11.2006 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner (appellant herein) challenging the award of the labour court dated 24.08.2001 directing reinstatement of respondents No.2 & 3, was dismissed. 2. The respondent No.2 namely, Badri Narain Meena and respondent No.3 namely, Surendra Singh Shekhawat were appointed as Helper and Operator respectively with the appellant in 1978. They were chargesheeted on 25.10.1991 for several acts of misconduct, which they had committed on 14th, 15th, 16th & 24th October, 1991. A domestic enquiry was held wherein vide report dated 13.12.1991, their misconduct was proved. They were then dismissed from service vide order dated 30.12.1991. The matter was sent for conciliation and upon failure of conciliation, failure report was filed on 05.03.1992. The matter was referred to the labour court on 20.01.1994 wherein vide order dated 05.07.2000, it was held that the enquiry was conducted fairly and the workmen were given full opportunity of hearing. The labour court vide award dated 24.08.2001 set aside the order of punishment and directed reinstatement of the respondent No.2 & 3. The appellant challenged the award of the labour court by preferring S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5318/2001, which was dismissed by the Single Bench vide the order dated 29.11.2006 which is impugned in the instant appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the charges of misconduct on the part of the respondents No.2 & 3 were rather grave and they had been throughly proved in the enquiry which was conducted in the matter. He has further submitted that the labour court as well as the learned Single Bench have erred in law in holding that the punishment of dismissal from service was not warranted on the ground of parity with another employee namely, Ram Karan Chaudhary, who had been let off with reduction of one month's salary. The misconduct on the part of the respondents No.2 & 3 was far serious and grave as compared to the misconduct committed by Ram Karan Chaudhary. He has also submitted that in case the misconduct is proved, there was no question of any victimization of the respondents and the punishment of dismissal from service can also not be held to be disproportionate to the misconduct. He has also submitted that in case the misconduct is proved, there was no question of any victimization of the respondents and the punishment of dismissal from service can also not be held to be disproportionate to the misconduct. He has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of The workmen of M/s. Firestore Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management & Others [ (1973) 1 SCC 813 ], Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. N.K.Singh [ (2006)12 SCC 554 ], M/s. Obettee Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Shafiq Khan [ AIR 2005 SC 3510 ], Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate [ (2005)2 SCC 489 ], Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [ (2006)1 SCC 430 ], Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited) & Ors. vs. The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha & Ors. [ (2000)7 SCC 517 ], and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B. Narawade etc. [ (2005)3 SCC 134 ]. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3 has submitted that the judgment of the Single Bench as well as the award of the labour court are fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and do not call for any interference as the misconduct on the part of Ram Karan Chaudhary was similar to the misconduct by the respondents and hence the punishment of dismissal from service has been rightly set aside. He has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Rama Kant Misra vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [ (1982)3 SCC 346 ], Mavji C. Lakum vs. Central Bank of India [( 2008(12) SCC 726 ], and Collector Singh vs. L.M.L. Limited, Kanpur [ (2015)2 SCC 410 ]. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. It would be appropriate to refer to the charge of misconduct attributable to the respondents No.2 & 3. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. It would be appropriate to refer to the charge of misconduct attributable to the respondents No.2 & 3. The chargesheet of the respondent No.2 Badri Narain Meena, translated in English, reads as under: “You are charged as follows:- You and Shri Surendra Singh Shekhawat on dated 14.10.1991 at about 2 PM in the factory organised a meeting of permanent workers and provoked and incited them that they should not work with any causal worker and also threatened them that in case they will work with the causal workers then they will be badly treated and beaten. You in your one register also got the signatures of those permanent workers who had participated in the meeting. You did not obtain any permission to organise such meeting in the factory premises. Hence that on dated 15.10.91 and 16.10.91 during your duty hours along with Surendar Singh and Ram Karan Chaudhary you from time to time, without any permission of senior officer left the place of your work and unauthorisedly entered the H & T inspection and planning departments without the permission of the head of the department and provoked and incited the workers working there that they should not work with the causal workers and you during your most of the duty time roamed in the whole of the factory to see that no permanent worker is working with the causal worker and in consequence of this Shri Bhanwar Singh, Shri Shaitan Singh and Shri Manohar Lal of C.R.M./H. & T. department could not work and unnecessary payments had to be made to the casual workers working with them. That on dated 16.10.91 you at about 2 PM in the factory premises, in front of the cashier's room without any permission of any senior officer, organised a meeting of casual workers and terrified, threatened and instigated them that they should not without the permission of permanent workers work with the permanent worker and assured them that in case they being relieved you will not allow any causal worker to be employed. That you along with Surendra Shekhawat on dated 24.10.91 at about 4.30 PM when you were on illegal strike then you without punching your card forcibly entered into the factory and terrified, threatened and instigated the contractor's workers and did not allow them to work. You along with Surendra Singh Shekhawat misbehaved with Manager (Personnel and Administration) Shri A.K.Das Gupta and abused them in the name of his mother and sister and threatened him to break his hands and legs on coming out of the factory. That there was settlement between the union and management on 5.4.91 and 22.3.86 and according to the settlement the following was settled:- 1. There will be no strike during his period. 2. No contract worker will work on the machines. But you by your actions as given in paras 1, 2 & 3 of the chargesheet violated the terms of the settlement and also got the settlement violated by terrifying and inciting other workers and managed to have partial strike that was in violation of settlement and illegal. To you earlier also in many times warning was given for misconducts but despite getting many warnings you have been failure in improving you behaviour. Your aforesaid conducts are serious misconducts under the standing orders and otherwise also. Hence you should furnish you written clarification to the undersigned within 48 hours of receipt of the chargesheet to show as to why not strict disciplinary action be taken against you. In case your written clarification is not received then it will be presumed that you admit these charges and you have nothing to say in your defence and accordingly action can be taken against you.” The charges against the respondent No.3 Surendra Singh Shekhawat are similar to the charges against Badri Narain Meena. 7. In case your written clarification is not received then it will be presumed that you admit these charges and you have nothing to say in your defence and accordingly action can be taken against you.” The charges against the respondent No.3 Surendra Singh Shekhawat are similar to the charges against Badri Narain Meena. 7. We would also deem it appropriate to refer to the charges against another employee namely, Ram Karan Chaudhary, whose charge-sheet translated in English, reads as under: “You are charged as follows:-That on dated 16.10.91 during your duty hours along with Shri Badri Narain Meena from time to time without permission of any senior officer left the work place and unauthorisedly without the permission of the head of the department entered H & T, Inspection, Planning and C.R.M. departments and provoked and incited the workers working there so that they will not work with the casual workers and your duty time for most of the time to see in the factory that no permanent worker is working with the casual worker continued to roam in consequence of that Shri Manohar Lal did not work in H & T Department and causal workers attached with him were unnecessarily paid. Your aforesaid conduct is serious misconduct under the standing orders and otherwise also. Hence you should furnish you written clarification to the undersigned within 48 hours of receipt of the charge sheet to show as to why not strict disciplinary action be taken against you. In case your written clarification is not received then it will be presumed that you admit these charges and you have nothing to say in your defence and accordingly action can be taken against you.” 8. It is apparent from the charge-sheet of the Ram Karan Chaudhary that he had only accompanied Badri Narain Meena-respondent No.2 on 16.10.1991 after leaving the work place unauthorisedly, provoked and incited the workmen. 9. The perusal of charges against the respondents, however, discloses that the allegations against them were that they were responsible for insubordination, indiscipline and instigated other workers not to work. They had misbehaved with the Manager and abused him. They also intimidated and threatened the Manager that they will break his hands and legs when he comes out of the factory. The perusal of charges against the respondents, however, discloses that the allegations against them were that they were responsible for insubordination, indiscipline and instigated other workers not to work. They had misbehaved with the Manager and abused him. They also intimidated and threatened the Manager that they will break his hands and legs when he comes out of the factory. They had also entered forcibly in the factory premises and participated in the strike on 24.10.1991 which had been declared illegal and threatened the contractor's workers, who were prevented from working. Therefore, it is patent that the misconduct on the part of the respondents is far grave than that on the part of the Ram Karan Chaudhary, who had participated in a solitary incident. 10. Hence, there does not seem to be any merit in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the respondents that as the respondents were President and Secretary of the Trade Union, they were well within their right to espouse the cause of fellow workers and raise their demands with the Management. The office bearers may have right to raise the demand of co-workers but they cannot in any way indulge in misbehaviour and intimidation of the senior officers. 11. We, thus, have no hesitation in holding that the learned Single Bench has not discussed the nature of the misconduct of the respondents while dismissing the writ petition. Even the labour court has merely recorded that similar charges were levelled against Ram Karan Chaudhary, who has been penalized for reduction of one month's salary and has not dealt in detail the issue of similarity in the charges against the respondents No.2 & 3 and Ram Karan Chaudhary. Once such a grave charge had been established it was not open to the labour court to reduce the punishment in a causal manner. 12. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the instant case. In the case of Rama Kant Misra vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (supra), a solitary incident had occurred when the workman therein raised his grievance against deduction of his wages and on receiving a curt reply, he on the spur of moment lost his cool and used threatening language against the Manager. In the case of Rama Kant Misra vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (supra), a solitary incident had occurred when the workman therein raised his grievance against deduction of his wages and on receiving a curt reply, he on the spur of moment lost his cool and used threatening language against the Manager. In the instant case, the respondents in a well planned manner misbehaved repeatedly on the aforementioned four dates and had also intimidated and threatened the Management. 13. In Mavji C. Lakum vs. Central Bank of India (supra), the charges against the workman were only with regard to rude behaviour and frequently leaving the working place during office hours without permission. In the case of Collector Singh vs. L.M.L. Limited (supra), the charges pertained to the act of throwing jute/cotton waste balls weighing 5 to 10 gm towards follow workers and it was held that this act by itself does not justify the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service as the workman had also duly apologised. 14. We are of the considered view that the labour court as well as the Single Bench have been guided by misplaced sympathy rather than any relevant factors while reducing the punishment of dismissal to reduction of a month's wages. Indiscipline at the work place is not to be tolerated and in case the workers repeatedly indulge in intimidation and threatening the senior officers, the entire working atmosphere would stand vitiated. The only punishment appropriate for such a misconduct, which had been passed, would be dismissal from service. 15. We draw support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra) wherein assault by workman on his superior despite grave provocation was held to be an act which warranted dismissal from service. It was also held that when a person is dismissed from service, it puts him to a great hardship, but that should not be a ground to allow the misconduct to go unpunished. Maintenance of a discipline of an institution is equally important. 16. In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B.Narawada (supra), the use of abusive and filthy language by the workman against a superviser was found to be sufficient ground for dismissal of the workman. Maintenance of a discipline of an institution is equally important. 16. In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B.Narawada (supra), the use of abusive and filthy language by the workman against a superviser was found to be sufficient ground for dismissal of the workman. It was also held that the discretion which is available to the labour court under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has to be exercised only when the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the Court or the existence of any mitigating circumstances, which may required reduction of the sentence and the labour court cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and reduce the punishment. 17. Therefore, the award passed by the labour court as well as the order passed by the Single Bench are set aside. In the result, the intra court appeal is allowed.