JUDGMENT : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.D. Rahevar for the petitioners and learned council Mr. Varun Patel for the respondent no.1. 2. By these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the separate Judgment and Orders passed by the Presiding Officer(S.D.) Labour Court No.1 at Bharuch in Reference (LCB) Case No.67 of 2018 and Reference (LCB) Case No.68 of 2018 whereby the Labour Court has awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to each of the petitioners along with cost of Rs.1,000/- in lieu of backwages and reinstatement. 3. For the sake of convenience, Special Civil Application No.17172 of 2019 in case of Mr. G. Dasharathan is treated as a lead case. 4. The brief facts of the case are as under: 4.1. The petitioner was serving as operator and C.L. with the respondent no.1-Company. The appointment letter was issued on 27.02.2013 but the petitioner joined the Company from 19.02.2012. The petitioner was on probation for the period of one year as per the appointment letter. 4.2. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working as operator and C.L. since 05.06.1996 as stated in the statement of claim and was transferred to the respondent no.1-Company in the year 2001 with an assurance that he would be sent back to the original place within two to three years but was not sent back to his original place of work after two to three years and also no salary was increased, the petitioner along with similarly situated workmen approached the Managing Director, at Chennai and proceeded for strike. 4.3. The respondent no.1-Company conducted an inquiry and the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct for his services and was terminated without payment of any compensation. 4.4. The petitioner was also served with charge-sheet on 20.10.2016. However, the petitioner and the workmen during the meeting with the management decided that they should not accept the offer made by the management and not to follow the instructions of the management and inspite of the notice issued to resume their work. 4.5. The petitioner and other workmen continued the strike from 21.10.2016 which amounted to serious misconduct under the model standing order. The respondent no.1- Company suspended the petitioner from duty without pay with immediate effect pending inquiry and was paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the law. 4.6. 4.5. The petitioner and other workmen continued the strike from 21.10.2016 which amounted to serious misconduct under the model standing order. The respondent no.1- Company suspended the petitioner from duty without pay with immediate effect pending inquiry and was paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the law. 4.6. The charges of disobedience and strike in the premises of the respondent no.1-Company and stopping the work which includes the disorderly or indecent behaviour and refusal to accept the orders of the superior were found to be proved in the inquiry. 4.7. It also appears from the record that during the conciliation proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), the respondent Company filed detailed statement on 30.07.2018 disclosing the subsistence allowance of Rs.3,17,655/- was paid to the petitioner from November-2016 to May-2018. 4.8. Thereafter the Conciliation Officer, Labour Commissioner referred the matter to the Labour Court by making a reference as to whether the petitioner should be reinstated on his original post with continuity of service and with full backwages. The Labour Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the submissions made on behalf of both the parties came to the conclusion that the respondent no.1- Company exceeded in use of its discretion by inflicting disproportionate punishment of removal from service to the petitioner and found that the discharge of the workmen from the services was not just and proper. The Labour Court exercised the jurisdiction and discretion vested in it under Section 11A of the Act and instead of punishment of discharge of the service from the petitioner by the respondent no.1-Company after considering the fact that there was no cordial relation between the petitioner and management of the respondent no.1-Company, the Labour Court awarded the lumpsum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and backwages after considering that the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance of Rs.3,17,655/- from November-2016 to May-2018. 4.10. Similar Judgment and Award is also passed awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in case of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.17345 of 2019. 5. Learned advocate Mr. 4.10. Similar Judgment and Award is also passed awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in case of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.17345 of 2019. 5. Learned advocate Mr. M.D. Rahevar for the petitioners submitted that the grant of lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages awarded by the Labour Court is illegal and contrary to the facts of the case in as much as the Labour Court has failed to consider the service of more than 20 years of the petitioners and grant of lumpsum compensation is not acceptable to the petitioners and as the period of service of the petitioners is quite long and the petitioners do not have any other job to fall back upon. 5.1. It was submitted that the Labour Court has not given any reason much less any cogent reason for exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 11A of the Act and as such the impugned Judgment and Award is not a reasoned Judgment and Award. 5.2. It was submitted that the entire Judgment and Award is perverse as the Labour Court has not discussed any evidence led before it by the petitioners and after considering the contents of the charge-sheet, the Labour Court has not even referred to the findings of the inquiry and how the inquiry was conducted by the respondent no.1-Company. It was submitted that the inquiry proceedings are merely an eye wash as the same were not conducted as per the procedure. 5.3. Learned advocate Mr. Rahevar for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the communications exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent no.1-Company placed on record at Annexure- F collectively at page 38 onwards to point out that the petitioner has objected the way in which the inquiry was conducted. 5.4. However, the communication placed on record at Annexure F on page 38 onwards of the Special Civil Application No.17172 of 2019 are not part of the record of the Labour Court and therefore it is not possible for this Court to consider the same while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged the inquiry proceedings before the Labour Court during the reference proceedings. Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged the inquiry proceedings before the Labour Court during the reference proceedings. On perusal of the statement of claim the petitioners have only referred to the letter dated 07.11.2016 submitted during the inquiry proceedings to the effect that any misconduct is alleged then charge-sheet is required to be given within one week from the date of suspension however, the respondent no.1-Company did not issue the charge-sheet even after 147 days and as such the entire inquiry proceedings are vitiated. However, no evidence is led before the Labour Court for proving such contentions raised in the statement of claim. 5.5. The petitioner has also not placed on record the letter dated 07.11.2016 before the Labour Court and did not even prove the same to challenge the veracity of the inquiry proceedings. The Labour Court therefore has rightly exercised the powers under Section 11A of the Act by holding that the punishment awarded by the respondent no.1-Company of removal of the petitioner from the service is disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. The Labour Court after considering the facts of the case came to the conclusion that this is a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 11A of the Act which reads as under : “11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen— Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require: Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter. 6. 6. From the above provisions, it is clear that if the Labour Court is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is disproportionate and the Labour Court can direct the reinstatement of the workmen on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit or give such other reliefs including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the Labour Court has exercised such discretion by awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- considering the relationship between the petitioner and the management of the respondent no.1-Company which has been tarred due to the conduct of the petitioner by proceeding on strike and indulging in misbehaviour. The Labour Court has therefore rightly held that instead of reinstatement and backwages an order of lumpsum compensation would be suffice to meet with the ends of justice. The Labour Court after considering the payment of Rs.3,17,655/- as subsistence allowance to the petitioner by the respondent no.1-Company during the period of suspension from November-2016 to May- 2018 exercised the discretion to pay the lumpsum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- considering the length of service of the petitioners. 7. In view of the findings of the facts arrived at by the Labour Court for exercise of the powers under Section 11A of the Act, no interference is called for while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitions therefore being devoid of any merit are accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.