ORDER : M.R SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 609 of 2017 by which the learned single Judge has dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal substituting the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, the appellant-original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. Heard Shri. Mushaw learned advocate appearing for the appellant-Corporation and Shri. Hitesh Acharya learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1. 3. It is required to be noted that the original workman, who was serving as a Conductor, was departmentally prosecuted and departmental inquiry was initiated for remaining absent unauthorizedly for 20 days. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, imposed the penalty of placing the workman to the lowest of the pay-scale. In Reference, the learned Industrial Tribunal substituted the aforesaid penalty with the penalty of stoppage of increments with future effect for the period between 16.10.2004 to 29.06.2009 with the further direction to pay consequential benefits until the date of retirement, in exercise of powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The same was challenged by the Corporation before the learned single Judge by way of the aforesaid Special Civil Application. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the said petition and has refused to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal. 4. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the fact that for the unauthorized absenteeism of 20 days, the order of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, when was found to be disproportionate to the charge and misconduct proved, was interfered with and substituted by the learned Tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and when the same has been confirmed by the learned single Judge, it cannot be said that the learned single Judge has committed any error, which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of the intra-Court appellate jurisdiction. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Civil Application stands disposed of.