JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 18.11.1997 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur reinstating the respondent-workman with 50% back wages. 2. The respondent-workman was working with the petitioner-Company since 5.2.1983. He was charge-sheeted by the petitioner-Company on account of several misconducts. A regular domestic enquiry was conducted and adequate opportunity was given to the respondent-workman to participate in the said enquiry. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the respondent-workman was guilty of misconducts which led to the dismissal of the workman. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal dated 23.2.1990, the matter was referred to the Labour Department for conciliation and on failure of the same, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Jodhpur. 3. The Labour Court, after referring to the domestic enquiry, noticed that the domestic enquiry had been conducted properly and was in conformity with the certified standing orders of the petitioner-Company. However, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the penalty of dismissal from service was harsh and ordered the re-instatement of the respondent-workman with 50% back wages. Aggrieved against the order setting aside the dismissal of workman and the order re-instating him in service with 50% back wages, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr Nitin Ojha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the service conditions of the respondent-workman were governed by the standing orders of the Company and as per the said standing orders, the respondent-workman was charge-sheeted on account of his misconducts. 4. Mr Nitin Ojha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the service conditions of the respondent-workman were governed by the standing orders of the Company and as per the said standing orders, the respondent-workman was charge-sheeted on account of his misconducts. The charges are as under:- " 1- 28-12-89 dks fnu dks 8 dh f'kQ~V esa izkFkhZ e'khu la0&2 ij M~e ua0&31 ls 60 pyk jgk Fkk rks izkFkhZ dks xSt ls ckgj /kkjk pykrs gq, lqijokbZtj Jh lriky flag us ns[kk vkSj idM+k vkSj iwNk rks izkFkhZ Jfed us dgk fd rw lqijokbZtj gh xst ls /kkjk ckgj djrk gS] esjk MqIyhdsV Hkjrk gS] rw esjs ihN iM+k gSA ftlds fy, lqijokbZtj us euk fd;k rks iqu% izkFkhZ us dgk rw gh esjk /kkjk xst ls ckgj djrk gS] eSa rks ,sls gh pyk?maxk] rw esjk D;k dj ysxk] rw eq>s cUn djok nsuk] mlh le; fMIVh fQfuflax bUpktZ Jh 'kekZ vk, rks muds lkeus Hkh ;g ckrsa nksgjkbZ xbZ] Jh 'kekZ us vius vkWfQl esa pyus dks dgk rks izkFkhZ us euk dj fn;k rFkk ekfuVj tsBw flag us Hkh le>krk ijUrq izkFkhZ us vkns'k dh ikyuk ugha dh rFkk ckn esa fQfuflax bUpktZ Jh valkjh izkFkhZ dks ys x;s] tks fd LFkk;h vkns'kksa ds fu;e 27 ( ch ) 3 ds vUrxZr nqjkpj.k gSA 2- fnukad 30-12-1989 dks izFke ikyh esa okbUMhax e'khu ua0&1 ij 40 ih0ch0th0 ds eky ij vkdj yxs] rFkk dEiuh ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj 30 M~e pyus Fks] ijUrq izkFkhZ us fMIVh fQfuf'kax bUpktZ Jh 'kekZ ls dgk fd eSa rks 24 M~e gh pykmaxk] tc fd izkFkhZ ds lkFk dke djus okys vU; dkjhxj bl eky ds 30 M~e pykrs gSA bl rjg mfpr vkns'k dks ugha ekudj izkFkhZ us dEiuh dks vkfFkZd uqdlku igqapk] tks xEHkhj nqjkpj.k gSA 3- Jfed vxLr ds fnlEcj rd mlds }kjk Lohd`r djk;s x;s vodk'kksa ds vykok tqykbZ] 1989 ls fnlEcj 1989 rd fuEu izdkj vuqifLFkr jgk%& vxLr esa 7 fnu] flrEcj esa 3 fnu] vLVwcj esa 3 fnu] uoEcj esa 1 fnu o fnlEcj esa 3 fnu vuqifLFkr jgk tks fd LFkk;h vkns'kksa ds fu;e 27 ( ch ) 9 ds vUrxZr xEHkhj nqjkpj.k gSA " 5. The respondent replied to the charge-sheet but the same was found not satisfactory by the Disciplinary Authority and it was decided to hold a domestic enquiry to probe into the charges. The respondent replied to the charge-sheet but the same was found not satisfactory by the Disciplinary Authority and it was decided to hold a domestic enquiry to probe into the charges. The respondent-workman eventually did not participate in the enquiry and the same was decided ex-parte. The Enquiry Officer, on the basis of the material available on record, held that the respondent-workman is guilty of all the three charges levelled against him. A show cause notice was given to the respondent workman, who replied to the same and after examining the record of the workman, it was decided to dismiss him from service. It is argued that the misconducts attributed to the respondent-workman are grave and are of severe nature and consequently there is no scope of interference by the Labour Court under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Reliance has been placed upon the judgement reported as Christian Medical College Hospital Employees' Union and anr. v. Christian Medical College Vellore Association and ors., (1987) 4 SCC 691 to contend that the Labour Court should exercise its power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 judiciously. Further it is contended that if the workman is insubordinate then he can be dismissed from service. Reliance has been placed on a judgement reported as Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade, (2005) 3 SCC 134 to where the workman, who had used abusive languages against the management, came to be dismissed from service. The Apex Court held as under:- "It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management where the workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgements of this court referred to herein above and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgements of this court referred to herein above and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under section 11-A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such factor existing, the Labour Court cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the punishment. As noticed herein above at least in two of the cases cited before us i.e. Orissa Cement Ltd. And New Shorrock Mills this Court held: "Punishment of dismissal for using of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate." In this case all the forums below have held that the language used by the workman was filthy. We too are of the opinion that the language used by the workman is such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilised society. Use of such abusive language against a superior officer, that took not once but twice, in the presence of his subordinates cannot be termed to be an indiscipline calling for lesser punishment in the absence of any extenuating factor referred to herein above." 6. No Reply has been filed nor has any counsel put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-workman despite service and vakaltnama on the record. The matter has been called twice. 7. I have heard submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have also perused the material on record. 8. There is no doubt about the fact that the Labour Court has the power to interfere with the order of punishment passed by the management of an industrial establishment under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, however, the power conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal is not unbridled and the same has to be exercised with great circumspection. 8. There is no doubt about the fact that the Labour Court has the power to interfere with the order of punishment passed by the management of an industrial establishment under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, however, the power conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal is not unbridled and the same has to be exercised with great circumspection. The Labour Court is required to interfere with the decision of the management only when it is satisfied with the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. In the present case, the petitioner-Company held a domestic enquiry into the charges levelled against the respondent-workman. For the reasons best known to him, the workman did not participate in the enquiry which resulted in the Enquiry Officer looking into the material on record and finding the respondent guilty of all the three charges levelled against him. The management issued a show cause notice thereafter and after looking at the reply and the record of the workman, found it expedient to dismiss him from service. In Mahindra and Mahindra (supra), the workman was dismissed on account of using abusive language towards the management and the dismissal order was upheld up till the Supreme Court. In M.P. Elec, Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, (2005) 3 SCC 401 , the Apex Court held that "Discipline at the work place in an organisation like the employer herein, is the sine qua non for the efficient working of the organisation. When an employee breaches such discipline and the employer terminates his services, it is not open to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved." 9. In the present case the workman was guilty of retorting and disobeying the order of superiors, not doing same amount of work as assigned to other workman, taking leave without any sanction. In any work establishment the management can not have an undisciplined work force who will work as per its own whims and fancies and not finishing the task or work allotted to him/her. It is for the management to see if retention of such a delinquent worker is in the interest of the establishment. In any work establishment the management can not have an undisciplined work force who will work as per its own whims and fancies and not finishing the task or work allotted to him/her. It is for the management to see if retention of such a delinquent worker is in the interest of the establishment. Refusing to work and complete assignments taking unsanctioned leave, retorting to supervisors are actions which are likely to vitiate the work atmosphere and if the management takes action against such employees the Labour court ought not to interfere in such situations. 10. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Labour court erred in allowing the reference and ordering reinstatement with back wages. Resultantly the above noted writ petition is allowed and the award of the Labour court dated 18.11.1997 is set aside.Writ Petition Allowed. *******