ORDER : The petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Mysore in Reference No.9/2018, whereby the Labour Court exercising the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘Act’ for short) has declared the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner dated 11.09.2015 as disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the respondent and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. 2. The respondent – Driver was dismissed from services by the petitioner – Corporation on the charges of misconduct of Bigamous marriage. The respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Mysore in Reference No.9/2018. The Labour Court allowed the claim petition in part modifying the order of dismissal into compulsory retirement and directed the petitioner to treat the case of the respondent as a workman who is compulsorily retired from service and to provide him with all financial benefits available to a compulsorily retired workman including the benefit of payment of leave surrender encashment and also issuance of pass. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel Sri. Aneppanavar Ramesh Basetteppa appearing for the petitioner – Corporation submits that the respondent – Driver has admitted the bigamous marriage which is a misconduct in terms of the Regulations 16(1) and (2) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (C & D) Regulations. In such circumstances, the Labour Court erred in modifying the quantum of punishment exercising the power under Section 11A of the Act. It is submitted that in view of the proved misconduct, the order of dismissal dated 11.09.2015 passed by the Corporation deserves to be confirmed setting aside the order of the Labour Court impugned herein. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, it is apparent that the Labour Court has exercised the power conferred under Section 11A of the Act to determine the just punishment of compulsory retirement from services considering the long length of service of Thirty years of the respondent with the petitioner – Corporation vis-a-vis the order of dismissal issued on the verge of the respondent’s retirement. It has been categorically observed by the Labour Court that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the petitioner – Corporation on the complaint given by his first wife Smt. Jayalakshmi; in the cross-examination of WW1 it was stated that his wife Smt. Jayalakshmi has obtained an order of divorce from him by virtue of which, the wife of the respondent ceases to be the member of the family of the respondent – workman. However, the relationship of the respondent with his two children born through Smt. Jayalakshmi continues to be the relationship of father and sons and accordingly issuance of pass in favour of the respondent is directed to be limited to the respondent and his children born through Smt. Jayalakshmi only. 5. In the circumstances, the power exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act when the respondent had left with service tenure of 1 ½ years cannot be held to be unjustifiable. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that the case on hand comes within the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. In the circumstances, no interference is warranted by this Court with the order impugned herein. The writ petition is devoid of merits, accordingly stands dismissed.