ORDER : 1. Writ Petition No.4310/2020 is by the workman challenging the award, denying reinstatement and consequential benefits despite the finding by the Labour Court that the penalty of dismissal imposed by the employer is disproportionate to the misconduct proved. 2. Writ Petition No.8630/2021 is by the employer aggrieved by the very same award of the Labour Court which has set aside the penalty of dismissal and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the proceedings are referred to as the employer and the workman. 4. The workman joined the employer's establishment in the year 2006. In the year 2014, disciplinary proceedings were initiated pursuant to charge memos dated 12.07.2014, 15.07.2014, 13.08.2014, 11.11.2014. It is relevant to notice that the charge memo dated 12.07.2014 was modified on 14.07.2014 to correct the typographical errors. 5. Two distinct domestic enquiries were held in respect of the charges referred to in the aforementioned charge memos. 6. The Enquiry Officer has recorded that the following charges are proved: a. That the workman did not participate in half yearly and annual appraisal, despite clear instructions and directions; b. The workman did not fill the requisite forms relating to appraisal as required; c. On 05.07.2014 the workman abruptly left the IDP Training Session and thereby disobeyed the instructions and showed in-subordination; d. Employee without permission of the Supervisors left the work place during working hours and gathered in front of Supervisor’s cabin and later, at M.D.’s cabin and caused disturbance at the work place. e. Refusal to accept or take notice of charge sheet, order or any communication served either in person or in due course of post, or by notification in the factory’s notice boards and also the workman refused to receive official communication dated 12.08.2014 The employer urged that above acts amount to the following misconduct by the workman: (i) Willful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others to any lawful and reasonable order of his superior in the discharge of his duties. (ii) Habitual breach of any law applicable to the company or standing orders. (iii) Slowing down work either singly or in combination with others or another or inciting others to slow down work. (ii) Habitual breach of any law applicable to the company or standing orders. (iii) Slowing down work either singly or in combination with others or another or inciting others to slow down work. (iv) Neglect of duty including, carelessness, laziness, inefficiency causing the quality of goods handled or processed by the employee/workman to be below the quality or quantity expected by the Company. 7. After the enquiries, the Enquiry Officer has recorded that the following charges are not proved: (i) Workman caused loss of Rs. 1,00,000/-; (ii) In the past, workman involved in similar acts on the dates mentioned in the charge memo dated 12.07.2014; (iii) Abusing MW1 and MW3 (iv) Refusal to accept letter issued for evaluating progress on IDP training process and schedule. 8. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. The workman and the parties were permitted to lead evidence relating to the plea of victimization. Both parties led the evidence. The Labour Court concurred with the finding of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority relating to the misconduct. The Labour Court held that the following charges are proved: (a) Refusal to participate in annual appraisal; (b) Leaving the orientation program amidst; (c) Illegally gathering in front of Supervisor’s and Managing Director’s cabin; (d) Willful in-subordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others to any lawful and reasonable order of his superior in the discharge of his duties; (e) Refusal to accept or take notice of charge sheet, order or any communication served either in person or in due course of post, or by notification in the factory’s notice boards. (f) Not filing the requisite forms of appraisal; 9. It is relevant to notice that in the domestic enquiry the workman has taken a stand that he has been victimized as he was actively participating in the trade union activity and was also an office bearer. 10. The Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that plea of victimization raised by the workman is not established. 11. The Labour Court after recording a finding that the workman is found guilty of certain charges as noted above and not guilty of other charges for which he was tried, has concluded that penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate. 12. The Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that plea of victimization raised by the workman is not established. 11. The Labour Court after recording a finding that the workman is found guilty of certain charges as noted above and not guilty of other charges for which he was tried, has concluded that penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate. 12. It is noticed that the Labour Court has concluded that some other employees against whom the charges were leveled and domestic enquiry was held, are still continuing in service. 13. The Labour Court as noticed held that no charges were leveled against the workman prior to 2012 and since the charges are leveled against the workman after he being a union member, probabilized that the petitioner is victimized. 14. Thereafter, the Labour court awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act, 1947). It is noticed that the Labour Court has not assigned any reasons at how it arrived at the figure of Rs. 3,00,000/- as the compensation payable instead of reinstatement. 15. The workman is praying for reinstatement and other consequential benefits and in the alternative a higher compensation. The employer is urging for dismissal from service. The Labour Court held that the penalty of dismissal imposed on the workman is disproportionate to the misconduct proved. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the workman before this Court would urge that the target fixed for reaching a certain figure in terms of production is not based on any scientific assessment. The target is so fixed to victimize the petitioner because the workman was active in the union activity. 17. Learned counsel for the workman would submit that the order of reinstatement should have been ordered considering the gravity of misconduct alleged. The misconduct alleged is that of the workman leaving the workplace abruptly and gathering in front of the cabin of the Managing Director along with other employees and thereby, causing an abrupt stoppage of production in the workplace. 18. It is urged on behalf of the workman that after having recorded a finding that there is no financial loss caused to the establishment and after having recorded a finding that the charges are not grave, the Labour Court committed an error in awarding a meager compensation of Rs. 18. It is urged on behalf of the workman that after having recorded a finding that there is no financial loss caused to the establishment and after having recorded a finding that the charges are not grave, the Labour Court committed an error in awarding a meager compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the workman, who had put in 10 years of unblemished service in the establishment. 19. It is urged that that work was aged 29 when penalty of dismissal was imposed, and considering the fact that he had a long tenure ahead of him and the meager compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- does not justify the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate. 20. Learned counsel for the workman would further submit that the compensation should be paid as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, and that being the case, the amount that the workman would have earned by way of salary and other emoluments should be taken into consideration before fixing the compensation. 21. It is his submission that even if the finding of the enquiry officer is to be accepted that many people gathered around the office of the Managing Director, it is only the workman who has met with the penalty of dismissal from service and it is a case of clear victimization. 22. Learned counsel for the employer who has also questioned the award passed by the Labour Court setting aside the penalty of dismissal, would submit that the charges levelled against the workman were grave and the workman instigated several employees to abandon work abruptly in the midst of the working hours and ensured that they gathered before the cabin of the Managing Director and has shown insubordination and has also caused disturbance in the working atmosphere. 23. It is urged on behalf of the employer that the workman was required to undergo an orientation programme to ensure that workman’s efficiency improves and the petitioner was one of the workmen identified to undergo the orientation programme and in the midst of such program, workman left the programme and proceeded to instigate other co-workers not to work and thereby, he disturbed the work atmosphere. The conduct of the workman amounts to a high degree of insubordination and given the fact that the petitioner instigated several other employees to commit the illegal acts which he did, the employer is justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal, which is very much provided in the standing orders applicable to the employer. 24. Learned counsel for the employer would further submit that the Labour Court is not justified in interfering with the penalty of dismissal imposed by the employer as the penalty of dismissal is proportionate to the misconduct proved. It is urged that the discretion under Section 11A of Act, 1947, is not wide enough to interfere with every penalty, but that discretion can be exercised only if the penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. 25. Referring to the compensation awarded by the Labour Court, it is also submitted that the award for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- by the Labour Court is bereft of any reasons. Absolutely there is no justification in awarding Rs. 3,00,000/- to an employee who is guilty of a misconduct and removed from service is the submission. 26. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that there is no victimization as alleged. On other employees, there was no charge of instigation which is levelled against the workman. Whereas, the workman had instigated other employees to leave their work and to gather in front of the cabin of the Managing Director. This being the position, it is urged that the present workman cannot be equated with other employees to seek a lesser punishment. 27. Learned counsel for the workman in his reply has relied on the following judgments: 1. Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 2. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. 1979 AIR 75 3. Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. 2014 LLR 673 4. The Management of M/s Nipro India Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. S0 Shankar , (2025) SCC Online Mad 2218 5. Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Chander Singh, (2017) SCC OnLine Del 13052 28. Learned counsel for the employer has relied on the following judgments: 1. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate , (2005) LLR 210 2. Informedia India Ltd. vs. Tata Press Employees' Union , (2008) LLR 704 3. M/s. Banaras Electric Light and Power Co. Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Chander Singh, (2017) SCC OnLine Del 13052 28. Learned counsel for the employer has relied on the following judgments: 1. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate , (2005) LLR 210 2. Informedia India Ltd. vs. Tata Press Employees' Union , (2008) LLR 704 3. M/s. Banaras Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. vs. The Labour Court II, Lucknow and Others , (1974) 3 SCC 103 4. Management of Ponni Sugar Mills vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Officer, Salem and Others , (2020) LLR 720 5. Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer -I Additional Labour Court , (2020) LLR 704 29. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 30. The disciplinary authority as well as the Labour Court have concluded that certain charges noted above against the workman are established. The finding is based on the evidence placed before the enquiry officer which is also assessed by the Labour Court. On considering the reasons assigned by the disciplinary authority, as well as the Labour Court, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the finding that certain charges against the workman are established. 31. Though it is true that all the charges against workman are not proved, the charges recorded in paragraph No. 8, supra are very much established. 32. The charges which are established do attract the penalty of dismissal. The Labour Court has exercised the discretion under Section 11A of Act, 1947 to award Rs. 3,00,000/- compensation upholding the order of termination. 33. Learned counsel for the workman has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the Deepali Gundu supra to contend that the workman is to be reinstated as the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct and once there is reinstatement, there has to be a payment of full back wages and consequential benefits. 34. In the alternative it is also submitted that in case the order of dismissal is to be upheld on the reason that considerable time has elapsed and it is not desirable to reinstate the workman after long separation from the employer, the compensation awarded should be on par with the wages that the workman would have earned. 35. In the instant case as already noticed the enquiry was held and some of the charges are proved, if not all. 35. In the instant case as already noticed the enquiry was held and some of the charges are proved, if not all. The charges proved do attract the penalty of dismissal of service. The enquiry officer has held that no material is placed to hold that it is a case of victimization. 36. The Labour Court comes to the conclusion that probably it is a case of victimization on the premise that the workman was member of the union. The Labour Court also holds that other employees against whom the enquiry was held were not removed from employment. However, it is to be noticed that it is not the finding of the Labour Court that the charges against all the employees were same. The charge of instigating other employees is one of the charges against the workman in this case, which is not a charge leveled against other employees. 37. Nevertheless, the Labour Court has concluded that the workman could not have been dismissed form employment on the premise that there were no other charges in the past against the workman. Thus, the Labour Court has proceeded to award compensation. Labour Court has not awarded reinstatement. Considering the material on record, this Court does not find reason to interfere with the said award ordering compensation instead of reinstatement. 38. The workman cannot be awarded compensation computing back wages as charges against him are proved and it is not a case of workman being exonerated. If the court exercises jurisdiction under Section 11A of Act, 1947 it does not mean that the Court is exonerating the employee. The Court after upholding the finding on charges, finds that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct proved. In such a scenario, the compensation cannot be on par with the wages the employee would have earned had he continued in the employment. The reasons are pretty simple: (a) The workman who is found guilty and is terminated from employment cannot be equated with the person who is not found guilty and directed to be reinstated. (b) After holding that the charges are proved against the workman and the Court or the Tribunal concludes that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate and awards compensation, in such a situation, the charges proved against the workman are not obliterated. (b) After holding that the charges are proved against the workman and the Court or the Tribunal concludes that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate and awards compensation, in such a situation, the charges proved against the workman are not obliterated. In such an event, if back wages are awarded, it amounts to rewarding a person who is not allowed to work despite found guilty of charges. In such circumstances, payment of back wages would not be automatic and depends on various factors. 39. When it comes to awarding compensation there is not straight jacket formula to determine the compensation. The qualification and experience of the workman, his wages at the time of termination, the age of the workman and possibility of he gaining another suitable employment would be the relevant factors which are to be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, enough materials are not placed in this behalf. 40. During the course of hearing it was submitted that the workman’s wages at the time of dismissal from employment was around Rs. 15,000-17,000/- per month and he was aged 29. The Court is of the view that the possibility of securing another employment was pretty high as he was aged 29. By the time the workman was removed from service he has put in 10 years of service. Assuming that it was a case of retrenchment then the petitioner would have received retrenchment compensation of Rs. 75,000-85,000/- in the year 2016. The compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- is awarded on 12.12.2019. 41. The contention that the ratio in Deepali Gundu supra is to be applied and the workman has to be reinstated and full back wages is to be paid cannot be accepted. The reason is in Deepali Gundu supra, the employee was not found guilty of charges. It was a case of gross victimization and without any enquiry the employee was dismissed from service. In such a situation, the Apex Court awarded reinstatement and full back wages. The ratio in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P Agarwal and another , 2007 (2) SCC 433 laid down by the Apex Court is not completely over-ruled in Deepali Gundu supra. Since, the petitioner is found guilty of charges the petitioner is not entitled to the compensation by taking into consideration his full remaining tenure of service cannot be awarded. The reason is, it is quite possible that the petitioner might have worked elsewhere. 42. Since, the petitioner is found guilty of charges the petitioner is not entitled to the compensation by taking into consideration his full remaining tenure of service cannot be awarded. The reason is, it is quite possible that the petitioner might have worked elsewhere. 42. In Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd . supra relied on by the learned counsel for the workman, the Apex Court held that ordinarily, a workman whose termination is held illegal is entitled to full back wages, except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced termination. Employer cannot unfairly penalize workmen by unjustified termination to resist union demands or lawful claims. In Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi supra, it is held that termination without compliance of mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is invalid, resulting in reinstatement and back wages claim. In Management of Nipro India Corp. Pvt. Ltd. supra, it is held that dismissal without a proper domestic enquiry under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act is void and reinstatement with back wages is the remedy. The employer bears the burden to prove gainful alternative employment to deny back wages. In Delhi Transport Corporation supra, it is held that illegal termination without proper enquiry violates natural justice and reinstatement or suitable compensation is the remedy. These judgments do not come to the aid of the workman as the enquiry is held and workman is guilty of misconduct. 43. Leaned counsel for the employer relied on Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. supra, the Apex Court in the said case upheld dismissal of an employee found sleeping on duty despite past minor misconducts, emphasizing that sleeping on duty is a serious misconduct. Apex Court ruled that Industrial or Labour Courts should not interfere lightly with an employer’s disciplinary action unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. It is a case where the workman was also guilty of past misconducts . In Informedia India Ltd . supra, the court emphasized that once misconduct is proved through a fair inquiry, punishment by the employer should be maintained without interference. In Banaras Electric Light supra, the Court held that once a conclusion on misconduct is drawn by the employer based on evidence, the tribunal should not interfere merely because plausible another view is possible. Disciplinary action depends on stability of findings from such inquiries and undue interference undermines employer-friendly disciplinary proceedings. In Banaras Electric Light supra, the Court held that once a conclusion on misconduct is drawn by the employer based on evidence, the tribunal should not interfere merely because plausible another view is possible. Disciplinary action depends on stability of findings from such inquiries and undue interference undermines employer-friendly disciplinary proceedings. In Management of TNSTC supra , the workman was dismissed for unauthorized absence without prior approval in violation of the Model Standing Orders, leading to disciplinary proceedings. The Court upheld that management's right to maintain discipline and confirms limited scope of judicial interference in matters of domestic enquiry and punishment. 44. The settled position of law is, the Court should not interfere with the decision of management lightly on the penalty imposed, once the charges are established. However, if the Court finds that that penalty is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged, the Court can interfere in the penalty. 45. It is to be noticed that the Labour Court though held that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the proven misconduct, has not directed reinstatement. It awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Probably taking into consideration the hardship and the agony, the Labour Court appears to have exercised discretion under Section 11A of Act, 1947 awarding a compensation Rs. 3,00,000/-. The said award cannot be said to be perverse to interfere in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. 46. Under these circumstances award of Rs. 3,00,000/- compensation cannot be said to be erroneous so as to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 47. Taking into consideration the overall factual aspects and also the fact that there were no other incidents of proved misconduct against the petitioner, prior to the order of dismissal and also taking into consideration no interest is awarded on compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- which is awarded in 2019, this Court is not inclined to accept the employer’s contention that award for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- has to be set-aside. 48. This Court also does not find any reasons to enhance the compensation as urged by the learned counsel for the workman. 49. It is noticed that no interest is awarded on the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The award was passed on 12.12.2019. The amount is payable from the date of the award and the same is not paid till today. The amount is deposited in Court on 20.02.2023. 49. It is noticed that no interest is awarded on the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The award was passed on 12.12.2019. The amount is payable from the date of the award and the same is not paid till today. The amount is deposited in Court on 20.02.2023. It is reasonable to assume that the employer must have earned interest on the said amount till it was deposited or the workman would have earned interest on the said amount had it been paid to him. After the amount was deposited in Court, on 20.02.2023 the amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit. Hence, the court is of the view that compensation awarded must carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of award till date of deposit before the Court. 50. The workman is also entitled to the interest earned on such deposit from 20.02.2023 till payment. 51. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition No.4310/2020 is allowed in part. (ii) Writ Petition No.8630/2021 is dismissed. (iii) The award dated 12.12.2019 passed by I Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.1/2016 is modified. (iv) In addition workman/petitioner in W.P. 4310/2020 is entitled to interest @ 8% p.a. on the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded from the date of the award till 20.02.2023 i.e. the date on which the amount in deposited by the employer before the High Court. (v) The workman/petitioner in Writ Petition No.4310/2020 is also entitled for interest accrued along with the principal amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- post deposit before this Court. (vi) No order as to costs.