ORDER : 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned award dated 10.02.2016 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CGIT”), whereby the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner regarding non-consideration of his claim for revocation/annulling the punishment order, passed in the departmental enquiry, after acquittal in criminal case, has been rejected by the CGIT. 2. Counsel appearing for the parties restricted their arguments on two grounds only i.e. whether the punishment imposed in departmental enquiry is disproportionate to the act of petitioner and whether CGIT has jurisdiction to entertain the claims of petitioner. 3. Petitioner is working as a Crane Operator in Jayant Project of Northern Coalfields Limited (NCL) at Singrauli. On the fateful day, petitioner switched off the Crane engine and left the keys in Crane cabin and alighted from Crane. The helper of petitioner i.e. Ramdhari Kushwaha, without any instruction took the keys and moved the Crane which caused death of one General Mazdoor namely Pathiram Singh. 4. A departmental enquiry was conducted against petitioner for negligence of leaving keys unattended and not following the safety norms. Petitioner was found guilty and imposed with penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. 5. Petitioner was acquitted in criminal case under Section 304-A of I.P.C. as prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. Petitioner challenged the punishment order before CGIT but reference was dismissed. 7. Learned CGIT declined to interfere in the matter on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to alter the punishment under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Power can be exercised only in the matters of discharge and dismissal. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that CGIT is bound by the terms of reference and, therefore, punishment ought to have been annulled. Petitioner has not committed the offence. The main accused is helper and moreover petitioner has already been acquitted in criminal case. 9. Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that due to negligence of petitioner one man has died and his whole family is uprooted, therefore, punishment is not disproportionate. Petitioner has not committed the offence. The main accused is helper and moreover petitioner has already been acquitted in criminal case. 9. Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that due to negligence of petitioner one man has died and his whole family is uprooted, therefore, punishment is not disproportionate. Counsel appearing for respondent relied on the judgment in the case of The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers’ Union vs. The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and others, (2006) 5 SCC 201 where it was held as under:- “16…...If the enquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any allegations of victimisation or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed. Section 11-A of the Act gives ample power to the Labour Court to reappraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing punishment. 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……...” 10. Counsel appearing for petitioner relied on judgments in the case of Rajendra Yadav vs. State of M.P. and others, (2013) 12 SCC 372 and in the case of K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn., AIR 2015 SC 998 regarding quantum of punishment imposed. 11. Considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 12. It is clear that CGIT has jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment only when there is allegation of victimisation or malafides or unfair labour practice. When enquiry was conducted fairly and properly, CGIT will not interfere in punishment since the case is not of dismissal or termination, therefore, section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted and evidence cannot be appreciated by CGIT. There is no infirmity or error of jurisdiction in order passed by CGIT. 13. Punishment imposed is also not disproportionate as the act of petitioner resulted in loss of a human life. Punishment does not shocks the conscience of the court rather punishment was in lighter side. 14. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.