THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 28641 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition is directed against an Award made by the learned Presiding Officer-cum-Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No. 317 of 1993 dated 21.11.1997, whereunder the claim petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the petitioner seeking reinstatement with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits, was dismissed. It appears, petitioner, while working as Assistant Supervisor in 1st respondent-Organization, was issued with a charge- sheet for the misconduct of assaulting and abusing the co-workers and the Supervisor. After conducting a detailed enquiry, however, the services of the petitioner were terminated by an order dated 24.8.1993. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Labour Court, under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act. It was the contention of the petitioner that neither the enquiry was properly conducted nor the charges framed against him can be said to have been proved, apart from the fact that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The Management resisted the application. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side. However, on the basis of the material available, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had bad behaviour with short temper and he was in the habit of assaulting the co-workers during the course of employment and the same was amply proved in the enquiry conducted by the Management and, therefore, the termination order passed on 24.8.1993 does not call for any interference by it and, as such, dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that, firstly, the dismissal order was passed with retrospective effect i.e. the termination order was passed on 24.8.1993 with effect from 23.5.1993 and on this ground alone, the Labour Court ought to have allowed the claim petition and set aside the dismissal order. Secondly, the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% and it was reduced to 25% without there being any justification. Further, the Labour Court ought to have seen that the enquiry was not conducted properly and, without admitting that there is any misconduct attributable to the petitioner, the same does not call for penalty of dismissal from service. Therefore, the Award passed by the Labour Court in confirming the dismissal order passed by the Management is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Management supported the Award passed by the Labour Court and submitted that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides and perused the impugned Award and other material made available on record. Though it cannot be said that there was no evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges of assaulting the superiors and the co-workers, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that a case of this nature, wherein the allegation against the petitioner is that he misbehaved with superiors or abused co-workers, should not have entailed in dismissal of the petitioner from service and the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and proved against the petitioner. Therefore, the Labour Court ought to have awarded some compensation in lieu of reinstatement. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-Management, the petitioner was removed from service in the year 1993 and it is more than 17 years since now. Apart from that, the petitioner is aged more than 50 years now. Further, it is submitted across the Bar that the petitioner has established some business in Tamil Nadu State and eking out his livelihood. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) is awarded to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement by holding that the punishment of dismissal is not proportionate to the misconduct alleged and proved against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Award passed by the Labour Court dated 21.11.1997 is modified and the respondent No.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the petitioner, in lieu of reinstatement of the petitioner into service, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 16-02-2010. MVB.