JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 02.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11782 of 2016, by which, the learned single Judge has dismissed the said petition preferred by the workman and has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, whereby the Reference of the workman was rejected, the original petitioner-workman has preferred present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. That the appellant herein - original petitioner workman was serving as Aaya (Lady Assistant) in the Vijay Vallabh Sarvajanik Hospital, Vadodara. A complaint was lodged by son of one of the patient against the appellant workman demanding extra money (bribe) which was demanded at the time of discharge of the patient. It was alleged that when the patient refused to give the illegal gratification/money, the patient was harassed and delay in supplying discharge papers. That the Departmental Inquiry was initiated against the workman. She was charge sheeted on 04.06.1999. Subsequently, additional charge sheet was filed against her on 19.03.1999. The charge against the workman was demanding bribe from one patient at the time of discharge and on not paying the same, the medical papers/discharged papers were delayed; that her husband threatened the complainant - son of the patient not to give evidence against the petitioner in the department inquiry and third charge was that the petitioner workman lodged the complaint against the Superintendent of Hospital with whom son of the patient had lodged the complaint against the conduct of the petitioner of demanding bribe. That on conclusion of departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the appellant workman are proved. That the Disciplinary Authority passed order of dismissal dismissing the workman from service. That the workman raised an Industrial Dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Vadodara which was numbered as Reference (LCV) No. 498 of 2000. That the workman submitted interim application in the aforesaid Reference and requested the Labour Court to first examine and/or consider the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry. That the workman raised an Industrial Dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Vadodara which was numbered as Reference (LCV) No. 498 of 2000. That the workman submitted interim application in the aforesaid Reference and requested the Labour Court to first examine and/or consider the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry. That by order dated 17.01.2013, the Labour Court, Vadodara at the request of the workman considered the legality and validity of the Departmental Inquiry and held the Departmental Inquiry as legal and valid and it was held that the inquiry does not suffer from any infirmity. 1.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara, dated 17.01.2013 on an interim application in Reference (LCV) No. 498 of 2000 holding the departmental inquiry as legal and valid, the workman preferred Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2013 before this Court. That the learned single Judge vide order, dated 1.5.2013 dismissed the said petition. Therefore thereafter, as such, the Labour Court was not required to again consider the question with respect to the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry. Thereafter, before the Labour Court the workman requested the Labour Court to exercise the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By giving cogent reasons, the Labour Court refused to exercise the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and thereafter rejected the Reference vide judgment and award dated 16.03.2016. 1.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in rejecting the Reference, the workman preferred Special Civil Application No. 11782 of 2016. That by impugned judgment and order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the said petition which has given rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Shri Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellant workman has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned single Judge has materially erred in dismissing the petition and confirming the award passed by the learned Labour Court rejecting the Reference. 2.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellant-workman that the learned single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the workman did not commit any misconduct. 2.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellant-workman that the learned single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the workman did not commit any misconduct. 2.2 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellant-workman that the learned single Judge has not properly appreciated fact that as such what was demanded by the workman was not by way of bribe and/or it cannot be said to be bribe, but it is usually said to be gift/Baxis, which is usually demanded and given by the patient and thereafter the same is distributed amongst Aayas. It is submitted that therefore, as such, learned Labour Court ought to have exercised the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and ought to have set aside the dismissal, more particularly, considering her long tenure of service of approximately 18 years. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. We have heard Shri Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellant at length. We have considered and gone through the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court as well as impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. 3.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such, earlier the workman herself submitted an interim application and requested the Labour Court to first decide the question with respect to legality and validity of the departmental inquiry. That the Labour Court held the departmental inquiry as legal and valid. The order passed by the Labour Court holding the departmental inquiry as legal and valid came to be confirmed by this Court in the petition being Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2013. That the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2013 confirming the order passed by the Labour Court holding the departmental inquiry as legal and valid, attained the finality. That the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2013 confirming the order passed by the Labour Court holding the departmental inquiry as legal and valid, attained the finality. 3.2 That thereafter, the learned Labour Court has proceeded further with the Reference and considering the fact that the charge and misconduct of demanding the bribe/illegal demand has been established and proved and considering the fact that earlier also against the workman number of complaints were made and she was served with the show-cause notices and the charge sheet between 1983 to 1989 for her different misconduct in the service, the Labour Court refused to exercise the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, Labour Court rejected the Reference which has been confirmed by the learned single Judge. 3.3 Having heard Shri Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellant and finding recorded by the Labour Court confirmed by the learned single Judge, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court rejecting the Reference. 4. The charge and misconduct alleged against the appellant of illegal demand and withholding the discharge papers for not satisfying her demand of money to send discharge papers has been established and proved in the Departmental Inquiry. As observed herein above, the Departmental Inquiry has been held to be legal and valid by the Labour Court which has been confirmed by this Court in earlier round of litigation. 4.1 The submission on behalf of the appellant that what was demanded by the appellant-workman was not illegal gratification/bribe but was a Baxis/Gift cannot be accepted as Gift/Baxis cannot be by way of compulsion. It is required to be noted that in the present case the son of the patient gave the complaint about the demand of illegal gratification/bribe and as they did not make the payment, discharge papers were withheld by the appellant. Even for not satisfying with the demand of Gift/Baxis, discharge papers cannot be withheld. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even thereafter the husband of the workman gave threats to the complainant which has been established and proved. Even the complainant - son of the patient also lodged the criminal complaint with the police station giving threats to him by the husband of the appellant - workman. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even thereafter the husband of the workman gave threats to the complainant which has been established and proved. Even the complainant - son of the patient also lodged the criminal complaint with the police station giving threats to him by the husband of the appellant - workman. 4.2 At this stage, it is required to be noted that even the Labour Court also discussed that in the past also workman was served with the several show-cause notices and charge sheets between 1983 to 1989 for her different alleged misconduct in the service. Therefore, the learned Labour Court even refused to exercise the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Once the charge and misconduct in the departmental inquiry are proved and disciplinary authority passed an order imposing penalty/punishment, thereafter, it is for the Labour Court to exercise the discretion and pass an order under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, provided the Labour Court is satisfied that the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shocking disproportionate to the charge and misconduct proved. Therefore, it is ultimately for the Labour Court to exercise the discretion. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court has rightly refused to exercise the discretion while refusing to exercise the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. That the learned Labour Court has given cogent reasons and has exercised the discretion judiciously, which is rightly not interfered with by the learned single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal fail and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.