ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records dated 13-5-2002 and made in I.D. No. 505 of 1998 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem, the second respondent herein and quash the same. The facts leading to the filing of the writ 8 petition is as follows : The first respondent herein was appointed as Driver on 25-10-1990 in the erstwhile Anna Transport Corporation, later on 23-4-1993, he was transferred to the petitioner corporation. A charge memo dated 2-11-2004 for the alleged misconduct that on 8-10-1994 at about 2.00 p.m. the petitioner has abused the Conductor, posted in the Time Keeping office as well as the Assistant Branch Manager in filthy language, besides that he attempted to assault the Conductor in his rest-room thereby he has brought disrepute to the corporation, for which the first respondent has given his explanation on 13-4-1995. An enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted his report on 10-10-1995 holding that the charges against him are proved. Thereafter, on, 14-12-1994, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he has also submitted his explanation on 28-12-1995 and on 21-3-1996, however, he was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent has filed I.D. No. 319 of 1997 before the Labour Court, Vellore to set aside the order of dismissal and it, after hearing both sides, passed an award dated 13-5-2002 holding that the order of dismissal is unjustified and directed the petitioner to reinstate the first respondent with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, but without back-wages. Aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court, the present writ petition has been filed by the Corporation. Aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court, the present writ petition has been filed by the Corporation. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Corporation submitted that the Labour Court failed to note that the conduct of the first respondent amounts to indiscipline under clause 14(3) of the standing orders of the Corporation; that the Labour Court failed to consider the evidence of the Conductor, who gave the complaint against the first respondent mentioning the date and time of the incident; that the Labour Court erroneously held that the first respondent was not at all present on the date and time of the incident, without considering the evidence on record; that when the Labour Court found that the enquiry was conducted in a free and fair manner and the charges against the first respondent are proved, it ought not to have interfered with the quantum of punishment imposed and prayed for setting aside the award. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Labour Court, though found that the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with law, it found that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the first respondent is grossly disproportionate to the charges, hence, it has rightly passed the award directing the corporation to reinstate the first respondent with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, without back-wages; that the charge against the first respondent is not a serious one warranting the punishment of dismissal from service and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the first respondent relied on the below mentioned decisions :- (i) (Damodaran v. Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Madras and another), 2002 (3) LLN 314 wherein, a learned single Judge of this Court, in para Nos. 17 and 18 it was held thus :- "17. ...... I have referred to the alleged abusive words as found in the charge memo. The facts in our case are similar to that in Rama Kant Misra case, (1983) 1 LLN 1 : 1982 Lab IC 1790 (supra) : In that case, the person involved was a Secretary of the Union of Workmen and the charge against him was misconduct consisting of use of indiscreet or abusive or threatening language. The facts in our case are similar to that in Rama Kant Misra case, (1983) 1 LLN 1 : 1982 Lab IC 1790 (supra) : In that case, the person involved was a Secretary of the Union of Workmen and the charge against him was misconduct consisting of use of indiscreet or abusive or threatening language. In the absence of any information regarding any blame worthy conduct during the period of 14 years of service rendered by him prior to the date of misconduct, the Honourable Supreme Court has expressed the view that the same could not permit an extreme penalty of dismissal from service. The same reasoning and the ultimate conclusion of their Lordship is directly applicable in our case. Further, the gravity of the charge of using indecorous language has to be viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstance also. The petitioner in our case being a Secretary of the Workers Union is expected to safeguard the interests of the workers, more particularly when his union members were asked to go over to the police station, that too, during the working hours, as the Secretary of the Union he had to intervene in the matter and questioned the Personnel Officer as to his direction to them (members of his union) to go to the police station. Only in this context, he had uttered the language as stated in the charge memo. It is made clear that this Court has no intention to encourage the use of indecorous language exhibiting indiscipline, as observed in the decision reported in Vridhachalam Cooperative Union Bank Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore, 1994 WLR 627 : (1994 Lab IC (NOC) 346) (supra) as well as in S. K. Mohiuddin v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, 1997 - II LLJ 111 (supra), yet the indiscreet use of language per se cannot be the basis of an order of dismissal. 18. In the light of what is stated above, I am satisfied that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority shocks the conscience of the Court and the same is disproportionate to the proved charges levelled against the petitioner. 18. In the light of what is stated above, I am satisfied that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority shocks the conscience of the Court and the same is disproportionate to the proved charges levelled against the petitioner. Inasmuch as the occurrence had taken place in 1986 i.e., after 15 years, and at this juncture, I do not propose to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to the Labour Court to consider the punishment in terms of section 11A of the Act and in order to shorten the litigation, as observed in B. C. Chaturvedi case, (1997 (4) LLN 65) : (1996 Lab IC 462) (supra), I am of the view that the appropriate punishment would be reinstatement with continuity of service and the petitioner - workman has to forego his entire back-wages. Accordingly, the impugned award of the Labour Court is modified and the second respondent - Management is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and without back-wages. Writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed." (ii) (Ved Prakash Gupta v. Messrs Delton Cable India Pvt. Ltd.), 1984 (1) LLJ 546 : 1984 Lab IC 658 wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court, in para No. 11, held thus :- "11. ..... The charge levelled against the appellant is not a serious one and it is not known how the charge, even if proved would result in any, much less total loss of confidence of the management in the appellant as the management would have it in the charge. It was argued in the Labour Court that there was no previous adverse remark against the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that any previous adverse remark against the appellant had been taken into consideration by the management for awarding the extreme penalty of dismissal from service to the appellant even if he had in fact abused in filthy language Durg Singh and S. K. Bagga, We are therefore of the opinion that the punishment awarded to the appellant is shockingly disproportionate regard being had to the charge framed against him. We are of the opinion that no responsible employer would ever impose in like circumstances the punishment of dismissal to the employee and that victimization or unfair labour practice could well be inferred from the conduct of the management in awarding the extreme punishment of dismissal for a flimsy charge of abuse of some worker or officer of the management by the appellant within the premises of the factory. We, therefore hold that the termination of the appellants service is invalid and unsustainable in law, and that he is entitled to reinstatement with full back-wages and other benefits including continuity of service. The appeal is allowed accordingly with costs quantified at Rs. 1,000. The writ petition is dismissed with costs." This Court heard the arguments of the counsel on both sides and the records placed were perused and considered. The charges against the first respondent was that (i) he abused the conductor and attempted to assault him in the rest room, (ii) acted in an irresponsible and negligent manner in discharge of his duties, and (iii) caused confusion among the labourers of the corporation. The Labour Court, after considering the pleadings of both sides, particularly the plea of the first respondent that he was not on duty during the relevant period, after analysing the evidence, found that the petitioner has not established the alleged charge against the first respondent. It was also pointed out by the Labour Court that even the conductor, in his examination, not stated when he was abused. The Labour Court also considered Ex. R5, the complaint lodged by the first respondent against the said Conductor, who favoured only private bus operators and prayed action against him, despite the fact that light duty was assigned to him by the corporation, which was not disputed by him in his evidence before the enquiry officer. The Labour Court further pointed out that a charge was levelled against the first respondent that he misbehaved in earlier occasion, but no document was furnished to him and without considering the said fact, the disciplinary authority found that the charges are proved. The Labour Court further pointed out that a charge was levelled against the first respondent that he misbehaved in earlier occasion, but no document was furnished to him and without considering the said fact, the disciplinary authority found that the charges are proved. It was also pointed out by the Labour Court that though the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with law, the charges levelled against the first respondent were baseless and the disciplinary authority not properly considered the evidence on record and ultimately it came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate and liable to be modified and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service, however, refused to grant back-wages. The first respondent has not challenged the award passed by the Labour Court to the extent of denying back-wages. The charge against the first respondent is that he abused the other employee. The charge levelled against the first respondent is not a serious one. Even if proved, would not result in any, much less, total loss of confidence of the petitioner management in the first respondent. The Labour Court, after considering the entire evidence on record rightly found that the charges are baseless. It was argued before the Labour Court by the petitioner that there was previous adverse remarks against the first respondent. There is nothing on record to show that any previous adverse remarks against the first respondent was placed and opportunity was afforded to him to deny it, while so, taking into consideration of the said previous adverse remark for awarding capital punishment is unsustainable in law. For the above said reasons, I am of the opinion that when the petitioner has not established the charges, the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate, as rightly found by the Labour Court, hence, the modification, as ordered by it, for reinstatement with continuity of service without back-wages is perfectly valid. There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.