ORDER : A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. The respondent, subjected to a disciplinary enquiry was found guilty of the charged misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 27.02.2006 and imposed the punishment of reduction to the minimum pay-scale by treating the period of suspension as 'not on duty'. The respondent raised an industrial dispute and Government of Karnataka in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'), referred the dispute for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal at Hubli. The case was registered by Tribunal in I.D. No. 89/2010. The workman filed claim statement vide Annexure-C and the Management filed counter statement vide Annexure-D. Preliminary issue with regard to the fairness of disciplinary enquiry conducted was answered against the workman. Further evidence having been adduced, both oral and documentary, by an Award dated 09.07 2012, the reference was allowed in part and impugned punishment was modified and a substituted punishment, which is lesser, was imposed. Assailing the Award as at Annexure-E, this petition was filed. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that finding recorded by Enquiry Officer and the Management being based on evidence cannot be interfered and substituted with a lesser punishment. He contended that Tribunal has committed illegality in exercising the power under Section 11-A of the Act and substituting the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 3. Learned advocate for the respondent on the other hand made submissions in support of the Award as at Annexure-E and sought dismissal of the petition. 4. Appreciating the evidence brought on record, Tribunal has held the misconduct attributed against the workman as established. It has further found that the workman was involved in 19 cases of similar nature i.e., non issue of tickets and/or non collection of fare. It has further found that minor punishments imposed for improvement of conduct have not yielded the desired result. Despite recording such finding it has held as follows: "However, by looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and also the nature of proved misconduct, I am of the view that the punishment imposed is on the higher side and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Despite recording such finding it has held as follows: "However, by looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and also the nature of proved misconduct, I am of the view that the punishment imposed is on the higher side and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. But, for the proved misconduct, in my view, instead of reducing the basic pay of the workman to the minimum scale of the conductor, reducing of one increment of the workman of the year 2002 permanently would meet the ends of justice. To that extent the workman is entitled to the relief. The latter portion of the impugned order of punishment treating the period of suspension of the workman as the period not on duty does not call for any interference. 5. It is trite that the misconduct alleged when established and accepted by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal on the premise that the material on record is sufficient to prove the charge alleged against the workman, punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority not being one of dismissal or termination from service, Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to invoke power under Section 11-A of the Act and interfere with the quantum of punishment i.e. substitute the punishment. In this regard it is appropriate to notice the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. And Others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 201 , which is to the following effect: "16. ... Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable in the case of dismissal or discharge of a workman as clearly mentioned in the Section itself " 6. In the case of BMTC, Represented By Its Chief Law Officer v. BMTC And State Transport Noukarara Sangha, ILR 2011 KAR 2037, it was held that the provision under Section 11-A is applicable only in the case of punishment being dismissal or discharge of a workman. 7. The Tribunal having not found any victimisation by the Management and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on 27.02.2006 being not one covered by Section 11-A of the Act has fell into legal error in allowing the dispute in part and substituting the punishment. 7. The Tribunal having not found any victimisation by the Management and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on 27.02.2006 being not one covered by Section 11-A of the Act has fell into legal error in allowing the dispute in part and substituting the punishment. Having found the misconduct alleged against the workman as established and there being 19 previous acts of misconduct and minor punishment imposed having not brought any improvement in the conduct of the workman, interference with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority by way of surmises and conjunctures is arbitrary and illegal. For the reasons stated supra, this petition is accepted and impugned Award to the extent of setting aside the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on 27.02.2006 and substitution with a lesser punishment is quashed. Having regard to the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal on the allegation of misconduct made against the respondent/workman, order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 27.02.2006 is restored.