JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. By his order the learned Single Judge has upheld the modification of the punishment imposed on the workman by the Industrial Tribunal. 2. The facts are not in dispute. 3. In respect of one more allegation that during a surprise check the workman had failed to issue tickets to three passengers out of eight passengers, a proceeding was initiated and after conducting an enquiry and obtaining the report, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose punishment of withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect and by treating the period of suspension as not on duty. 4. In respect of another allegation that during a surprise check, it was found that the workman had failed to issue tickets to six passengers of Rs.3/-each, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and on the receipt of a report, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect and further ordered to recover a sum of Rs.1,000/-from the salary of the workman in five monthly installments. 5. In respect of one more allegation that during a surprise check, it was found that the workman had failed to issue tickets to three passengers of Rs.10/-each, a proceeding was initiated. However, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to dispense with the enquiry and on the basis of the records, came to the conclusion that the workman was guilty and imposed a punishment of withholding of one ensuing annual increment for two years without cumulative effect and further ordered to recover Rs.300/-in two installments from the salary of the workman. 6. In respect of these three punishments imposed, the workman raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. 7. The Industrial Tribunal, on consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that the reference deserved to be allowed in part. 8. The Industrial Tribunal proceeded to set aside the punishment imposed in respect of reduction of basic pay by three stages and in lieu of the same, imposed punishment of reduction of one increment of basic pay with cumulative effect. 9. In respect of punishment relating to withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect, the Industrial Tribunal set aside the entire punishment. 10. 9. In respect of punishment relating to withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect, the Industrial Tribunal set aside the entire punishment. 10. In respect of punishment of withholding of one ensuing annual increment without cumulative effect, the Tribunal imposed a fine of Rs.575/-which was five times the amount of penalty to be recovered from the passengers. 11. The KSRTC, being aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal passed in the reference, challenged the same by filing the writ petition. 12. Learned Single Judge, on consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that there was no ground to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition. It is against this order of dismissal, the present appeal is filed. 13. Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the KSRTC strenuously contended that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reduce the punishment after having recorded a finding of guilt. She submitted that the power to substitute a lesser punishment to the Tribunal was available only in case of discharge or dismissal under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Industrial Tribunal could not substitute its own punishment in other cases. She submitted by reducing the punishment, the entire misconduct of the workman was virtually ignored and he was being let off with an insignificant punishment, which in reality, would be of no consequence to the workman. 14. Smt.Manjula Kulkarni, learned counsel for the workman, on the other hand, contended that the award of the Tribunal could not said to be perverse or irrational. She contended that the learned Single Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that there was no warrant for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and had rightly dismissed the writ petition. 15. We have considered the respective submissions of learned counsel on both sides and perused the material on record. 16. It is no doubt true that in respect of three sets of allegations, the workman has been found to be guilty of misconduct. It cannot also be in dispute that once a finding of misconduct is entered into, the workman would have to suffer a punishment. However, it is important that the punishment to be imposed on the workman should also be commensurate with the proven misconduct of the workman. It cannot also be in dispute that once a finding of misconduct is entered into, the workman would have to suffer a punishment. However, it is important that the punishment to be imposed on the workman should also be commensurate with the proven misconduct of the workman. If the punishment imposed is disproportionate and not commensurate with the allegations, then it becomes the duty of the Tribunal to examine the matter in a holistic manner and impose a punishment which is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 17. The argument of the learned counsel for the KSRTC that the punishment by the Disciplinary Authority can never be interfered with cannot be acceptable. It is to be stated that the very purpose of establishing the Industrial Tribunal is to ensure that the irrational conduct of an employer is kept in check and the workman is not subjected to victimization. Keeping this object in mind, the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Courts are conferred with the same power as that of a Civil Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. 18. There can be no dispute to the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case South Indian Cashew Factories Worker’s Union Vs. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited and Others - (2006) 5 SCC 201 , which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/KSRTC. It is however to be noticed that the proportionality of the punishment would also have to be considered, lest the workman not be a victim of oppressive punishment. 19. As stated above, the misconduct of the workman has stood proved in two enquiries held against him. This proved misconduct had also been accepted by the workman since he had chosen not to challenge the award of the Industrial Tribunal. Though the employer had found the workman to be guilty in all three cases, the serious penalty of termination was not imposed and only reduction in increments and basic pay were imposed. This, by itself, proves that the employer was of the view that the proven misconduct did not warrant a major punishment. 20. It is to be noticed that it could not be in dispute that the workman had accepted the misconduct alleged against him and also the punishment imposed on him by the Industrial Tribunal as he had not challenged the award of the Tribunal. 21. 20. It is to be noticed that it could not be in dispute that the workman had accepted the misconduct alleged against him and also the punishment imposed on him by the Industrial Tribunal as he had not challenged the award of the Tribunal. 21. The question, however, remains as to whether the punishment imposed against the workman and as modified by the Industrial Tribunal was commensurate with the charges of misconduct that had been proved against him. 22. In all the three cases, the principal misconduct which has been alleged and proved was that the workman had not issued tickets to passengers. In two cases, it is to be noticed that the bus was carrying a total passengers of 61 and 94 and he had failed to issue tickets to six and three passengers respectively and in the third case, out of eight passengers, he had failed to issue tickets to three passengers. 23. In our view, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases, in respect of the case where the workman had failed to issue tickets to six passengers out of total of 61 passengers and had not completed the entry in the way bill, the imposition of punishment of reduction in the basic pay by three stages with cumulative effect, would be disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Having regard to number of passengers in the bus, in our view, justice would be sub served if punishment of reduction of basic pay in one stage with cumulative effect is ordered while retaining the order for recovery of Rs.1,000/-from the workman as against the punishment substituted by the Tribunal. 24. In respect of imposition of punishment of four annual increments with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as not on duty, we are of the view that the said punishment would have to be substituted by directing withholding of two increments with cumulative effect having regard to the fact that out of total of eight passengers, the workman had failed to issue tickets to three passengers. The order directing the period of suspension to be treated as on duty would have to be restored and affirmed. 25. The order directing the period of suspension to be treated as on duty would have to be restored and affirmed. 25. As far as imposition of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years and for recovery of Rs.300/-is concerned, we are of the view that the said punishment imposed would not call for any interference. 26. It is to be stated here that the Tribunal could not have ordered for setting aside the withholding of annual increment and imposed only the punishment of recovery. In our view, the Tribunal ought to have ensured that the workman should be made to realize that in the case of misconduct which he had admitted and accepted, he would have to necessarily suffer a punishment and the only requirement was that the punishment imposed on him was commensurate with the acts of misconduct. 27. We are, therefore, of the view that the award of the Tribunal and that the order of the learned Single Judge require to be modified. We say so on the basis of doctrine of proportionality as well as Article 14 of the Constitution of India in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We accordingly hold that the workman would have to suffer the following punishments for the proven misconduct: a) Withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect and the period of suspension would be treated as not on duty in respect of punishment dated 30.06.2003. b) Withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years and for recovery of a sum of Rs.300/-from the salary of the workman would stand restored and affirmed. c) Basic pay of the workman shall be reduced by one stage with cumulative effect and Rs.1,000/-shall be recovered in five installments from the workman stand restored. Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Parties to bear their respective costs.