Counsel for the appellant company argued that even though he could not challenge, in view of the limited special leave granted to the company, the finding that the impugned order was not termination simpliciter in bona fide exercise of the employer 's right to terminate the service of an employee, he was entitled to agitate the question whether or not the High Court, on the facts of this case, should have interfered and ordered compensation in place of reinstatement, particularly because : (a) the concerned employee was posted in the blast furnace, a crucial part of the company 's works, in respect of which the company could not hazard any risk, (b) the Tribunal had given a clear and firm finding against the case that the workman had been victimised on account of his union activities, and (c) the Tribunal and the High Court had both set aside the company 's order only because of their finding that it was punitive in nature and that the punishment was so disproportionate, that it amounted to victimisation.