Judgment :- The petitioner challenges the Award in Complaint No. 1 of 1987 in I.D. No. 62 of 1982 passed by the second respondent dated May 23, 1991 2. The first respondent originally joined Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited as Helper in the year 1989 on daily wages and was subsequently absorbed into monthly cadre. He was transferred to Thanthai Periyar Corporation in the month of April 1983 and he was redesignated as Junior Trademan. On June 11, 1986, one duty driver Palani stopped Bus TML 8208 at Chingleput bus depot opposite to tyre section for change of stepney which got punctured and went out for toilet. In the meanwhile the first respondent moved the vehicle in reverse to take it outside the gate and in the process the ladder of the vehicle hit one Gangadurai, technical trainee, who was coming from the rest house of research trainees. The result was that the said Gangadurai fell down and died. Seven charges were framed against the petitioner. In the domestic enquiry the enquiry officer found all the seven charges, except a part of the third charge, were proved. The respondent Management accepted the said findings and issued the second show-cause notice. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, by order dated October 13, 1986, the second respondent dismissed the first respondent from service. The first respondent filed a complaint 1 of 1987 in I.D. No. 62 of 1982 on the file of the second respondent stating that he is a concerned worker in the Dispute No. 62 of 1982 and no approval was obtained from the second respondent for his dismissal as contemplated under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The first respondent further contended that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased Gangadurai and that except charge No. 3 all other charges are not specific. The Tribunal found that the findings of the enquiry officer that the first respondent herein is guilty of a reckless, negligent and unauthorised act and other findings are correct. But the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal taking a lenient view and ordered reinstatement into service with all backwages on the ground that the death of Gangadurai should not loom large and he has acted without authority, out of over-enthusiasm and as such he deserves lesser punishment. But the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal taking a lenient view and ordered reinstatement into service with all backwages on the ground that the death of Gangadurai should not loom large and he has acted without authority, out of over-enthusiasm and as such he deserves lesser punishment. Against this order of the Tribunal, the petitioner, is before this Court. 3. The petitioner management alleges in the affidavit that the complaint is not at all maintainable as pending I.D. No. 62 of 1982 is against all Transport Corporations owned by Government of Tamil Nadu for bonus for financial year 1981-82. It is also alleged in the affidavit that admittedly the first respondent joined the petitioner-Corporation on June 24, 1983 long after the said financial year that he is not entitled to bonus for the said year from the petitioner-Corporation, and as such the first respondent is not entitled to claim as a concerned worker in so far as the petitioner-Corporation is concerned. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the Tribunal has taken the misconduct committed by the first respondent light-heartedly and reduced the punishment to one of suspension for a month, and that the reasons given by the Tribunal that it had been done out of over-enthusiasm is perverse. It is also alleged that the second respondent Tribunal ought to have been conscious of the fact that somebody will be passing that way, that without any guide no vehicle should be reversed and that the first respondent was negligent in driving the vehicle mostly out of pleasure and as such no punishment short of dismissal will meet ends of justice. 4-5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the contesting first respondent. It is claimed in the counter-affidavit that the first respondent joined in the Pallavan Transport Corporation in September 1981 as Junior Tradesman in technical side at Kancheepuram depot and then he was transferred from Kancheepuram depot to Chinglepet depot. 4-5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the contesting first respondent. It is claimed in the counter-affidavit that the first respondent joined in the Pallavan Transport Corporation in September 1981 as Junior Tradesman in technical side at Kancheepuram depot and then he was transferred from Kancheepuram depot to Chinglepet depot. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that a new corporation namely Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation was formed by merging certain portions of Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation with major portion of then Pallavan Transport Corporation, that in this process the Chinglepet depot which was formerly taken over by Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation and areas south to Madras were given to Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation and as such the petitioner and other workmen employed in Chinglepet depot were asked to exercise their option either to remain in Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation or to go over to Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation. It seems that the first respondent expressed his willingness to go over to Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that as the technical workman the first respondent was looking after the maintenance of the vehicles, that while doing the maintenance work he was permitted to take the buses within the depot from one place to another, that on July 11, 1986 while he was on duty, the bus TML 8208 operated in the route No. 108-B came to Chingleput depot to replace its punctured tyre, that when the driver went to the toilet, he took the bus to the gate. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that when he was proceeding in the reverse direction crossing the two buses stationed at the right side of the bus, one Gangadurai, a co-employee in the technical section, after finishing his work in 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. shift was proceeding urgently to his house from the rest room, that the said Gangadurai was leaving certain messages to other employees and in that process he did not see the bus coming in the reverse direction, that he could not be seen while the first respondent was taking the bus in reverese direction, that the said Gangadurai was hit against the ladder and fell down, that the bus ran over him and that he died due to the accident It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that seven charges were framed against the first respondent by charge memo dated July 11, 1986 and that he submitted his explanation. It is also stated that in the enquiry, one witness was examined on the side of the Management and that the cross-examination made by the first respondent will show that the said Gangadurai was negligent. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that as the bonus dispute for 1981-82 is pending before the Tribunal the petitioner Management should have sought approval under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act and that since the Management failed to do so, a complaint had been filed by the first respondent. It is also stated that the complaint filed under S. 33(A) of the Act is maintainable, that the first respondent joined in Pallavan Transport Corporation in September 1981, that he is very much concerned in I.D. 62 of 1982, the bonus dispute and as such the complaint is maintainable. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner-Management being a State, it should not stand on technicalities, that the Award of the second respondent in interfering with the punishment is not against law. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner failed to see that the Tribunal has powers under S. 11(A) of the Act to interfere with the punishment. 6. Mr. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner failed to see that the Tribunal has powers under S. 11(A) of the Act to interfere with the punishment. 6. Mr. T. Arulraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation, contended that the complaint under S. 33(A) is not maintainable as the bonus dispute pending for the year 1981-82 is not concerned with the petitioner Corporation and that the first respondent was not a party to the proceedings, since he joined the Corporation only in the year 1983. It is also contended by the learned counsel that at the time the dispute was raised; the first respondent was employed in the Pallavan Transport Corporation. It is also contended that the factual position that the first respondent reversed the bus and the occurrence of the accident is not disputed. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has not exercised its discretion properly in reducing the punishment. 7. Per contra, Mr. Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, contended that the first respondent was taken by the petitioner Corporation that the first respondent was originally in Pallavan Transport Corporation, that he was later taken over by the Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation and posted at Chingleput depot and that the petitioner cannot say that no dispute is pending regarding bonus. Learned counsel relies upon the decision in S. K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra, (1983-II-LLJ-429) and contends that technicalities should not stand in the way in such matters. According to the learned counsel, under S. 18(3) of the Act, the petitioner is bound for settlement, in the sense, in I.D. 64 of 1982 all Transport Corporations are parties in the pending dispute. It is also stated that the contention of the petitioner that the complaint is not maintainable is not correct. With regard to the scope of S. 11-A of the Act, it is contended that the Tribunal has considered the order of the Criminal Court passed in C.C. 578 of 1986 on March 23, 1987, which has been marked as W. 6, and that past record was not considered. The learned counsel further contended that the matter need not be remanded to the Labour Court because this Court can go into the past record and pass an order. He relies upon the decision in National Carbon Company v. Labour Court, 1987-I-LLN 405 passed by Nainar Sundaram, J. (as he then was). The learned counsel further contended that the matter need not be remanded to the Labour Court because this Court can go into the past record and pass an order. He relies upon the decision in National Carbon Company v. Labour Court, 1987-I-LLN 405 passed by Nainar Sundaram, J. (as he then was). According to the learned counsel, now there is settlement consequent upon the acquittal of the Criminal Court, the conviction need not be taken into account. It is also stated that with regard to the past record no evidence was adduced and as such the Tribunal has not taken into account the past record. 8. I have considered the arguments of Mr. T. Arulraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation, and of Mr. D. Paranthaman, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-workman. The short point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the complaint made by the workman is maintainable and whether the order of Tribunal in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Enquiry Officer is correct. 9. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the workman-the first respondent herein had become the employee of the petitioner Corporation and therefore for the purpose of bonus claim he is eligible to claim it from the petitioner-Corporation and also the previous employer, who are owned and financed by the Tamil Nadu Government, are liable to pay the bonus for the year 1981-82. The Tribunal has further held that the service of the first respondent employee under both employers is a continuous one for all purposes. I think the view of the Tribunal in this regard is right. 10. With regard to the portion of the Award of the Tribunal in reducing the punishment from dismissal to a period of suspension for one month, it is true that the Tribunal has not considered W. 6, the judgment of the Criminal Court, acquitting the first respondent-workman and also his past record. With regard to the past record, I do not find that any evidence has been adduced on the side of the petitioner Management. It is seen that the first respondent-workman was acquitted by the Criminal Court, by judgment dated March 23, 1967 on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the first respondent workman was negligent in reversing the vehicle. It is seen that the first respondent-workman was acquitted by the Criminal Court, by judgment dated March 23, 1967 on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the first respondent workman was negligent in reversing the vehicle. It is true that a Division Bench of this Court in National Carbon Company v. Labour Court, (supra) has held as to the discretion of the Labour Court exercised under S. 17-A of the Act and this Court can exercise the same to interfere with the award of Labour Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any dispute about the proposition as pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent. But in so far as the facts of this case are concerned, since the past record of the first respondent-workman has not at all been considered and that there is no evidence available with regard to the past record, I am of the view that this matter has got to be remitted back to the Labour Court to go into the question of past record and arrive at a conclusion with regard to the quantum of punishment. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision in National Carbon Company v. Labour Court (supra) especially para 25 of the judgment, on a reading of the said judgment itself it will be seen that the Labour Court therein considered the evidence of past record of the employees therein. Unfortunately, there is no evidence of past record has been placed even before this Court. It is true that when the discretion has been exercised by the Labour Court under S. 11-A of the Act, it need not be interfered by this Court. But when the past record has not been considered, I think that the Tribunal has to be asked to re-do the matter and pass orders afresh. To this limited extent the writ petition will stand allowed, the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court and the Labour Court is directed to pass orders afresh after considering the past record of the first respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office is directed to despatch the records immediately to the Labour Court, within a period of one month from to-day. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed as stated above. Office is directed to despatch the records immediately to the Labour Court, within a period of one month from to-day. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed as stated above. No costs.