1 lpa350-08 dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 350 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5392 OF 2007 Krishna (Crisana) Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., ... Appellant. V/s. Vanita Arvind Adate. ... Respondent Mr. V.P. Vaidya for Appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 28th FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. 2. The labour Court by order dated 10.10.2005 allowed the reference of concerned workman and while exercising power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, granted compensation of Rs. 1 lac in view of the fact that the company was closed. The Award was confirmed by the learned Single Judge by its order dated 27.8.2007 by observing in para 1 as under :- “1. The petitioner challenges an award of the Labour Court dated 10.10.2005 in Reference (IDA) No. 23 of 1999. The service of the 1st respondent workman had been terminated as she had remained absent in excess of 2 lpa350-08 leave granted. Several other charges including reporting late for duty and habitual absenteeism are alleged against her. The Labour Court has found that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are not perverse and that the respondent was guilty of the misconduct committed by her. However, on the question of punishment the Labour Court has considered the fact that the punishment of dismissal was not commensurate with the misconduct committed by Respondent No.1. The Labour Court has taken into account certain extenuating circumstances, such as, the 1st respondent was in service for 13 years and that at the age of 36 she would face economic death. The Labour Court has also accepted the fact that the petitioner Company is closed from 2001. On finding that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate, the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and held that instead of reinstatement and payment of back wages and continuity of service, the respondent workman is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. ” 3. In our view, the order of the learned Single Judge passed as back as in 2007 is not required to be interfered with in this Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal stands rejected. 4. In view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No. 431 of 2007 also stands dismissed. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)