JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mrs. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel representing Respondent No. 1. The original case records, as requisitioned from the Office of the Labour Court of Assam, Dibrugarh is also before this Court. 2. The Karmachari Sangha i.e. the petitioner is espousing the cause of one of its workmen, namely, Sri Mojin Gohain. The facts essentially to be noticed are that on 30.08.2008 Sri Mojin Gohain had called upon the Proprietor of the Ghograjan Tea Estate in his Office and displayed unruly behaviour to the extent of rebuking and abusing the Proprietor in highly objectionable language. The said incident of 30.08.2008 led to placing Mojin Gohain under suspension. On 21.09.2008 the Manager of Ghograjan Tea Estate informed Sri Gohain that his act displayed on 30.08.2008 constituted grave misconduct as per the Standing Orders of the Tea Estate. Accordingly, a written explanation was called for from Sri Gohain. In the said letter of 21.09.2008 it was also indicated that he will be entitled to subsistence allowance and ration at concessional rate during the period of suspension. Reply to the charge of misconduct was made on 26.09.2008 by Sri Gohain stating that it was not on his own volition that he had called upon the Proprietor. Rather, it was the Proprietor who had called him to his Office and Gohain had only complied with the said order. In the said Reply dated 26.09.2008 it was also alleged that the action taken by the Management amounted to unfair labour practise. 3. A Domestic Enquiry was initiated by appointing one Smt. Arati Sharma, Advocate as the Inquiry Officer and during the proceedings of the said enquiry as many as 4 witnesses had deposed on behalf of the Management, who were also subjected to cross-examination. Relevant documents were also exhibited as Exhibits 1 to 5. From the side of the Petitioner, as many as two witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited which were marked as Ext.-'Ka' and 'Kha'. 4. Upon completion of the enquiry proceedings, the Report of the Inquiry Officer was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter an order came to be passed on 03.07.2010 under the hand of the Manager, Ghograjan Tea Estate whereby the services of Sri Mojin Gohain was terminated. 4. Upon completion of the enquiry proceedings, the Report of the Inquiry Officer was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter an order came to be passed on 03.07.2010 under the hand of the Manager, Ghograjan Tea Estate whereby the services of Sri Mojin Gohain was terminated. The said letter dated 03.07.2010 indicated absence of any extenuating circumstances for mitigating the penalty so imposed. 5. The petitioner Karmachari Sangha raised a dispute in respect of the termination of service of Sri Mojin Gohain and eventually by Govt. Notification dated 26.09.2011 the said dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Dibrugarh in exercise of powers under clause (c) sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference were as follows: 1. Whether the Management of Ghograjan Tea Estate is justified for termination of service of Shri Mojin Gohain, with effect from 03.07.2010? 2. If not, whether the workman is entitled to re-instatement with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof? 6. Pursuant to the said Reference, the Labour Court at Dibrugarh heard the matter and answered the two Issues in favour of the Management of Ghograjan Tea Estate. While rendering the Award dated 18.09.2012 the Labour Court examined the statements of the witnesses of either side made before the Inquiry Officer and also appreciated the documents on record as exhibited during the enquiry proceedings. The Court below also framed a preliminary issue in respect of the question as to whether the principles of natural justice had been complied with during the enquiry proceedings. On an exhaustive appreciation of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and also taking note of a catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court, more particularly in the case of India Iron and Steel Company Limited v. Workman reported in AIR 1958 SC 130 , the Labour Court arrived at the finding that the termination from service of Mojin Gohain was done properly and the Management was justified in doing so. As a corollary, the Court below found that Mojin Gohain was not entitled to reinstatement with back wages. 7. The aforesaid Award dated 18.09.2012 passed in Reference Case No. 3 of 2011 by the Labour Court of Assam, Dibrugarh is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings. 8. Mrs. As a corollary, the Court below found that Mojin Gohain was not entitled to reinstatement with back wages. 7. The aforesaid Award dated 18.09.2012 passed in Reference Case No. 3 of 2011 by the Labour Court of Assam, Dibrugarh is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings. 8. Mrs. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the award cannot stand the scrutiny of law, in as much as, the evidence of witnesses, particularly that of MW3, was not appreciated in its proper perspective and also, there is altogether no discussion and/or findings on the Issues referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. Mrs. A. Bhattacharyya also submits that, assuming but not admitting that the findings and decision of the Labour Court is proper, however, the penalty imposed upon Mojin Gohain and upheld by the Labour Court is wholly unsustainable in law on grounds that the same is shockingly disproportionate to the offence alleged. In this respect Mrs. Bhattacharyya places reliance upon the decision in (i) Ved Prakash Gupta v. M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. reported in AIR 1984 SC 914 (ii) Workman represented by the Secretary, Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha, Panitola Branch v. The Management of Kharjan Tea Estate and Another etc. rendered on 12.08.2015 in WP(C) No. 4896/2007 and (iii) Raj Kumar Dixit v. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, Kanpur Nagar reported in (2015) 9 SCC 345 . Whereas the first two cases pertain to the concept of proportionality of the punishment, the third case delineates the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Responding to the writ petition, Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel representing Respondent No. 1 submits that the Award dated 18.09.2012 do not suffer from any infirmity. The Issues for adjudication together with the preliminary Issue above had been answered upon a correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary. It is also contended that the Award dated 18.09.2012 had been rendered in strict accordance to the power of the Labour Court as envisaged under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, on a conspectus of the evidence on record the Labour Court had unvaryingly and unambiguously found that the Management was justified in terminating Mojin Gohain from service. To this end, Mr. Further, on a conspectus of the evidence on record the Labour Court had unvaryingly and unambiguously found that the Management was justified in terminating Mojin Gohain from service. To this end, Mr. Mannan has referred to the relevant portion of the Award to vindicate his stand. Reference is also made to one of the case laws relied upon by the Labour Court in India Iron and Steel Company Limited (supra) which delineates the power of this Court to make interference in an award passed by the Labour Courts. Taking it further, it is contended that interference is warranted only when the Court is satisfied that there was want of good faith and Management had resorted to victimisation or unfair labour practise. Also, the Court must be satisfied that the Management was guilty of a basic error or had proceeded in violation of the principles of natural justice. That interference would be warranted when upon appreciation of the materials on record it appears that findings are completely baseless or perverse. To this end, reliance is placed upon the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 201 to say that the enquiry being fair and proper and in the absence of any element of victimisation or unfair labour practise, the Labour Court was correct in answering the reference in favour of the Management. 10. The contentions above have been noticed. A close perusal of the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer and that of the findings and decisions by the Labour Court, it appears that the Issues for adjudication including the preliminary Issue on the principles of natural justice had been duly answered by the Labour Court in favour of the Management. Having said that, however, there is yet another vital issue that was disregarded and was not considered by the Court below. Before adverting to the said vital issue, it would be apposite to look at the power of the Labour Court as envisaged under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, the said provision is reproduced here under: [11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen. For ready reference, the said provision is reproduced here under: [11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen. - Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re-instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any seller punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case my require: Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record an shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter.] 11. While exercising adjudicatory powers it is incumbent upon the Labour Court to explore if any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal is attracted as the circumstances of the case may require. Section 11A of the Act, as held in the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union (supra) gives ample power to the Labour Court to reappraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing punishment. The extreme penalty of termination from service was inflicted upon Mojin Gohain only on the ground that he had entered into the Office of the Proprietor without permission and had misbehaved and insulted the Proprietor, however without any evidence of any injury being inflicted. This is the core ground for dismissing Mojin Gohain from his employment. In my considered opinion, the Labour Court while exercising powers under Section 11A of the Act ought to have considered this aspect of the matter and to make an award having regard to the circumstances of the case in hand. 12. It is no more res integra that the quantum of punishment has to be proportionate to the offence alleged. Apparently, the charge levelled against Mojin Gohain cannot be categorised as a serious one. 12. It is no more res integra that the quantum of punishment has to be proportionate to the offence alleged. Apparently, the charge levelled against Mojin Gohain cannot be categorised as a serious one. There is also no record to show about any previous adverse remark against Mojin Gohain and that the same had been taken into consideration by the Management while awarding the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. The issue with regard to disproportionate punishment was dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Ved Prakash Gupta v. M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. (supra). For ready reference the relevant portion of paragraph 13 of the judgment is reproduced below: "The charge levelled against the appellant is not a serious one and it is not known how the charge even if proved would result in any much less total loss of the confidence of the management in the appellant as the management would have it in the charge. It was argued in the Labour Court that there was no previous adverse remark against the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that any previous adverse remark against the appellant had been taken into consideration by the management for awarding the extreme penalty of dismissal from service to the appellant even if he had in fact abused in filthy language Durg Singh and S.K. Bagga. We are therefore of the opinion that the punishment awarded to the appellant is shockingly disproportionate regard being had to the charge framed against him. We are also of the opinion that no responsible employer would ever impose in like circumstances the punishment of dismissal to the employee and that victimization or unfair labour practise could well be interred from the conduct of the management in awarding the extreme punishment of dismissal for a flimsy charge of abuse of some worker or officer of the management by the appellant within the premises of the factory. We therefore hold that the termination of the appellant's service is invalid and unsustainable in law, and that he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits including continuity of, service." 13. We therefore hold that the termination of the appellant's service is invalid and unsustainable in law, and that he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits including continuity of, service." 13. On the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court and having regard to the case in Raj Kumar Dixit (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that a writ in the nature of certiorari is maintainable in a case where an inferior Court had passed order by failing to exercise its jurisdiction. In the first instance, the facts revealed that the powers of the Labour Court under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been appropriately exercised, in that, the award was not passed on a complete appreciation of the circumstances of the case. What had been clearly left out of consideration is with regard to the proportionality of the punishment vis-a-vis the offence alleged to have been committed. 14. This Court in the case of Workman represented by the Secretary, Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha, Panitola Branch (supra) in a similar matter, had also interfered with the Award passed by the Labour Court by relying upon the ratio laid down in Ved Prakash Gupta v. M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. (supra). In the facts to that case, this Court found that the penalty of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate and accordingly interfered with the action of the respondents. 15. In the present case, having regard to the facts of the case and failure on the part of the Labour Court to exercise power and jurisdiction in reverence to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by ignoring to appreciate the entire circumstances of the case with regard to the quantum of punishment vis-a-vis the nature of the offence charged and also having regard to the catena of decisions as alluded to above, more particularly in the case of Ved Prakash Gupta (supra), this Court is of the view that the Award dated 18.9.2012 warrants interference and the same is accordingly done. Having interfered with the Award dated 18.09.2012 passed in Reference Case No. 3 of 2011, the Respondent No. 1 shall take necessary steps for reinstating Mojin Gohain into service. Needless to say that Sri Gohain shall be entitled to all benefits that would be available to him post reinstatement. Having interfered with the Award dated 18.09.2012 passed in Reference Case No. 3 of 2011, the Respondent No. 1 shall take necessary steps for reinstating Mojin Gohain into service. Needless to say that Sri Gohain shall be entitled to all benefits that would be available to him post reinstatement. In so far as the prayer for payment of back wages is concerned, this Court is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- is paid to Mojin Gohain in lieu of back wages. 16. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. 17. Registry to send back the records to the concerned Court forthwith.