JUDGMENT : 1. The Writ Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2848 of 2017 has filed this writ appeal challenging the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.01.2017, whereby, the award of the Labour Court to reinstate the respondent with immediate effect and 50% back-wages was confirmed. 2. In the Writ Petition filed, it is stated that the respondent was a workman in its establishment. The respondent had attempted to assault a security guard and the security supervisor intervened and protected the security guard. Consequent to this, the petitioner issued an order suspending the respondent followed by a domestic enquiry. It is stated that the respondent again indulged in another attempt of assault on the security guards on 01.07.2012 in which regard complaint was registered with the concerned police by the security supervisor. It is stated that the domestic enquiry was held against the respondent and at the domestic enquiry, the respondent admitted to the charges leveled against him. After the enquiry concluded, a report was submitted to the petitioner where the charges were held to be proved. The petitioner therefore passed an order of dismissal of the respondent with effect from 24.12.2012. The respondent filed a claim petition before the Labour Court under Section 10(4)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court in terms of its order held that the enquiry was fair and proper and thereafter the respondent led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record passed an order directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% backwages. The petitioner challenged this order of the Labour Court before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge felt that there was no injury was caused by the alleged assault by the respondent and also noticed that the security guard who was assaulted was not examined before the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge also held that there was no evidence of the police apart from the apology letter that was placed by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge held that the apology letter was prepared in the police station and therefore, the same cannot be looked into. The learned Single Judge also held that the respondent is not habituated to defy his superiors and therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the order of the Labour Court. The petitioner is in appeal before us. 3. The learned Single Judge also held that the respondent is not habituated to defy his superiors and therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the order of the Labour Court. The petitioner is in appeal before us. 3. It is argued by the petitioner that the respondent is in the habit of staying away from work and also is in the habit of assaulting the security staff and that there were two past instances. 4. The notice of this appeal was issued to the respondent but the respondent though served has remained absent before this Court. 5. A perusal of the Articles of charge issued against the respondent as well as the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer makes it clear that the respondent was an undesirable person to be employed and therefore the disciplinary authority passed a major punishment of dismissal from service. It is also found that the Labour Court held that the enquiry was fair and proper and therefore, the only question that had to be considered was the proportionality of the punishment imposed. The Labour Court having once held that the enquiry was fair and proper could not have permitted further evidence to be adduced by the respondent. Therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in directing the reinstatement of the respondent with back-wages. 6. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Davalsab Husainsab Mulla vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, (2013) 10 SCC 185 . The relevant paragraphs are as follows: "13. In this context, it will be appropriate for the Labour Court to assess the gravity and magnitude of the misconduct found proved against the employee concerned, the past conduct of the employee, the repercussion it will have in the event of interference with the order of discharge or dismissal in the day to day functioning of the establishment which will have far-reaching effects on the other workmen and so on and so forth. It should always be remembered that any misplaced sympathy would cause more harm to the establishment which provides source of livelihood for many number of employees than any good for the employee concerned. It should always be remembered that any misplaced sympathy would cause more harm to the establishment which provides source of livelihood for many number of employees than any good for the employee concerned. It will be worthwhile to refer to the repercussions that would result in the event of any misplaced sympathy shown to an employee who indulges in certain acts of misconduct which has been lucidly explained in a decision of the Madras High Court reported as Royal Printing Works vs. Industrial Tribunal and Another, 1959 (2) LLJ 619 - wherein Hon. Balakrishna Ayyar, J. (as he then was) stated the position as under (LU pp. 621-622) "There are certain passages in the order of the tribunal which as I understand them suggest that carelessness on the part of an employee in relation to his work would not justify serious punishment. With this view I definitely disagree. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. I shall not refer to the classic example of the sentry who sleeps at his post and allows the enemy to slip through. There are more familiar instances. A compositor who carelessly places a plus sign instead of a minus sign in a question paper may cause numerous examinees to fail. A compo under in a Hospital or chemists' shop who makes up the mixtures or other medicines carelessly may cause quite a few deaths. The man at an airport who does not carefully filter the petrol poured into a plane may cause it to crash. The railway employee who does not set the point carefully may cause a head-on collision. Misplaced sympathy can be of great evil. Carelessness and indifference to duty are not the high roads to individual or national prosperity." (Emphasis supplied) 15. Therefore, in the case on hand, the conduct of the employee towards the establishment as well as its fellow employees and higher authorities was highly condemnable and, therefore, there was absolutely no scope for exercising the discretionary power vested in the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act. The Labour Court, therefore, rightly declined to exercise the said jurisdiction vested in it in his favour. The Labour Court, therefore, rightly declined to exercise the said jurisdiction vested in it in his favour. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge by merely stating that the Labour Court had only considered the interest of the Corporation and not the interest of the employee set aside the said award which was correctly rectified by the Division Bench. The Division Bench was, therefore, well in order in having set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge and restoring the order of dismissal passed against the appellant. We too, therefore, do not find any scope to interfere with the order impugned in this appeal." 7. An incidence akin to insubordination/causing violence against the security personnel who are required to maintain vigil in an establishment, cannot be trivialized or ignored and if done would be a case of misplaced sympathy. In the case on hand, the security personnel are also governed by the mandate of the Management to ensure strict compliance of entry and exit/monitoring impress of the electronic punch. It is stated that the respondent had indulged in a past misconduct in straying away from work during working hours without notice or permission. The respondent repeated it on 12.06.2012 and when the security personnel instructed him to press the electronic punch, the respondent assaulted the security personnel and that the security supervisor intervened and protected the guard. A complaint was registered with the police to which the respondent submitted an apology. At the enquiry the management witness MW.1 to MW.3 were examined and Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.36 were marked. The respondent was examined as WW.3 and two witnesses as WW.7 and WW.2. 8. At the enquiry, WW.3 claimed that the petitioner had lodged a complaint against not only the respondent but two other workmen named Parameshaand Lakshmegowda. It is claimed that the petitioner had initiated action only against the respondent. The gravity of the incident could be gauged by this statement of the respondent and if this is allowed to permeate in an establishment, it would very likely result in a hostile atmosphere at work place. It is to be noted that except claiming that the petitioner had an attitude of hatred and nursed vengeance against the respondent, nothing is elicited to show that the petitioner had any other past grievance or premeditated intention to victimize the respondent. It is to be noted that except claiming that the petitioner had an attitude of hatred and nursed vengeance against the respondent, nothing is elicited to show that the petitioner had any other past grievance or premeditated intention to victimize the respondent. Moreover, the respondent is allowed to work in the establishment for well over 15 years as claimed and thus there couldn't be any reason for intentional implication of the respondent in a false case. 9. In view of the above, we feel it appropriate to set-aside the order of the Labour Court and confirm the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the following: ORDER: Writ Appeal is partly allowed. The order of learned Single Judge dated 31.01.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 2848 of 2017 is set aside. The order of the Labour Court dated 27.08.2016 passed in I.D. Application No. 2 of 2013 is set-aside and the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 24.12.2012 dismissing the respondent from the service is confirmed.