JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent/writ-petitioner was working with the appellant-Company and was in-charge of various machines. He was served with a charge-sheet on 28.04.1997 alleging that on 25.03.1997 he had refused to obey the directions issued by Shri R.P. Kedawat at 2.30 PM to repair EG-37 machine. That at 2.45 PM he shouted at Shri Kedawat and proceeded on half day leave. 3. The respondent sought from the disciplinary authority documents pertaining to the second shift on 25.03.1997 including the job orders and copies of statements made by Shri Kedawat, Shri Vishan Lal Gupta and Shri Deep Chand. He also sought permission to be represented by one Shri Rishabh Chand Jain as a defence assistant. Reason why the respondent required the documents was to bring home the point that he was already entrusted the job to repair another machine which would be proved from the job card issued to him. His case was that he had told Mr. Kedawat that he would repair the machine EG-37 after he repairs the machine for which job card was issued to him. His case was that since Mr. Kedawat was insisting that he should repair EG-37 machine, to obviate the situation turning hostile he applied for half day leave and left. 4. Defence assistant was the entitlement of the workman under the standing orders. It was denied on the plea that Shri Rishabh Chand Jain is an Advocate. 5. This was the first point urged before the learned Single Judge and has succeeded. The appellant has no proof of Rishabh Chand Jain being an Advocate. Thus, on this ground alone the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge holding that a valuable right of the workman has been infringed upon requires the appeal to be dismissed. Even on the second count i.e. not supplying relevant documents the impugned order has to be sustained. 6. Lastly, the learned Single Judge has sustained his verdict holding that the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate by relying upon certain case law. Indeed, the defence of the workman was that he was entrusted the job to repair another machine. He requested his superior officer not to insist that he repairs the second machine immediately because the first machine has been opened up by him. The penalty has been correctly opined to be disproportionate. 7. Indeed, the defence of the workman was that he was entrusted the job to repair another machine. He requested his superior officer not to insist that he repairs the second machine immediately because the first machine has been opened up by him. The penalty has been correctly opined to be disproportionate. 7. Noting that the appellant is a relief undertaking, instead of awarding back wages the learned Single Judge has directed compensation in sum of ' 5 lacs to be paid to the workman. 8. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. 9. The appeal is dismissed.