Judgment :- S. Mukhopadhaya, J. As both the appeals have been preferred by a common appellant, they are tried together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant (workman), who was the driver in the Management of Tamil Nadu Goods Transport Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation"), was asked to take the lorry of the Management to go to Tuticorin. He refused to obey the said order and got angry and assaulted the Junior Assistant, causing bleeding injuries on his mouth and nose. A departmental proceedings was initiated against him and the charge having been found proved in the said proceedings, after notice and hearing the workman, he was dismissed from service. 3. At the instance of the workman, I.D.No.415 of 1985 was proceeded before the Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Madras. By the impugned award dated 25th November, 1989, the Labour Court reinstated the workman with 50% backwages and continuity of service. When the management challenged, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.15847 of 1992 by the impugned order dated 22nd December, 1999, giving rise to one of the appeals (W.A.No.529 of 2001). 4. After the aforesaid order, the workman having lost his case, challenged an order passed on 9th April, 1987 in the preliminary enquiry, by filing a separate writ petition in W.P.No.21199 of 2000. The learned single Judge, having noticed that following the said preliminary enquiry, subsequently a domestic enquiry had been held and the workman having been found guilty was dismissed from service and that the learned single Judge has already passed an order, refused to go into the question of legality and propriety of the preliminary enquiry and rejected the second writ petition by the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2000. This gave rise to the analogous writ appeal No.495 of 2001. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contentions. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ workman while submitting that the preliminary enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law, further submitted that the order of punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. According to him, the previous records of the workman should have been considered while awarding punishment on the basis of enquiry report and he should have been allowed to continue in service as ordered by the Labour Court. According to him, the previous records of the workman should have been considered while awarding punishment on the basis of enquiry report and he should have been allowed to continue in service as ordered by the Labour Court. Such submission has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation who referred to the orders of the learned Single Judges and submitted that the order of dismissal was commensurate with the gravity of the charges. 7. It will be evident that the departmental enquiry was conducted after following the procedure and notice to the workman and the finding is based on evidence. The charge of disobeying the Superiors orders and assaulting the Junior Assistant, causing bleeding injuries has been found proved after notice to the petitioner and based on the findings of enquiry report, he was dismissed from service. It is also not in dispute that the Labour Court after noticing the relevant fact, has come to the definite conclusion that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. The reasoning’s given for modification of the order of punishment were as follows: .(i) There is no prior bad record against the delinquent. There is also no adverse report against the 1st respondent subsequently while the disciplinary proceedings were pending. .(ii) It is submitted by the delinquent that his wife died while disciplinary proceedings were pending and he has got two children, and (iii) There is no material to show that he is employed somewhere else". 8. The learned single Judge having noticed that the aforesaid criteria cannot be taken into consideration to grant benefit under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, set aside the award modifying the order of punishment from dismissal to discharge. Having regard to the allegation made against the workman, which has been proved in the departmental proceedings and such proceedings have been upheld by the Labour Court, we are of the view that the workman is not entitled for reinstatement and the learned single Judge has rightly interfered with the award. 9. So far as the second writ appeal is concerned (W.A.No.529 of 2001), we agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that after enquiry was over, the order of dismissal (converted as discharge) having been affirmed upto High Court, the question of legality and propriety of preliminary enquiry cannot be opened at this stage. 9. So far as the second writ appeal is concerned (W.A.No.529 of 2001), we agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that after enquiry was over, the order of dismissal (converted as discharge) having been affirmed upto High Court, the question of legality and propriety of preliminary enquiry cannot be opened at this stage. We find no merit in either of the writ appeals. Both are accordingly dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.