Judgment :- The petitioner was a workman. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.301 of 1995 dated 15.04.1999, the present. writ petition has been filed. By the impugned award, the second respondent Labour Court declined to grant any relief to the petitioner. .2. Notice of motion was ordered on 12. 1999. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on account of the death of his father N.Kannu, who was working as a Driver in the first respondent corporation. He was appointed in the post of Canteen Server/Cleaner with effect from 19.04.1991. At the time of joining, he produced a school certificate shoving that he had passed 8th standard from the Corporation High School, New Washermanpet. The said certificate was not verified at the time of his joining or at the time of his confirmation. Subsequently, when the petitioner sought for conversion of his post to that of Driver along with license for heavy duty vehicles, his certificate was verified with the school and it was found that the petitioner had not passed 8th standard, but was detained. Therefore, the first respondent framed a charge sheet and conducted an enquiry. On the basis of the enquiry, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 30.07.1994. The petitioner thereafter raised a dispute which came before the Labour Court. The Labour Court took up the dispute as I.D.No.301 of 1995. 3. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself as W.W.1 and filed seven documents and they were filed as Exs.W1 to W7. on the side of the Management, one Devarajan was examined as M.W.1 and they also filed three documents and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M3. The Labour Court held that the certificate produced by him showing that he had passed 8th standard is not correct and the Headmasters letter that he was detained in the 8th standard is acceptable. Therefore, the Labour Court held that since the minimum qualification required for the post of Driver was a pass in 8th Standard and the petitioner not having the said qualification is not entitled to hold the said post. Therefore, the Labour Court held that since the minimum qualification required for the post of Driver was a pass in 8th Standard and the petitioner not having the said qualification is not entitled to hold the said post. Thereafter, the Labour Court held that though there is no prescribed qualification for the post of server/cleaner in the canteen run by the Corporation, since the transfer certificate in Ex.M1 having false entries, it is a clear case of misconduct and hence, his dismissal was justified. Therefore, he is not eligible for any relief to be given by the Labour court. It is against this award the present writ petition has been filed. .4. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to unfortunate circumstances, when his father passed away, he got a compassionate appointment as a Canteen Server/Cleaner for which there is no minimum qualification. The fact that the certificate produced by him showing that he has passed 8th standard may not be correct but yet, it is not a case that he never studied in the school. On the contrary, the Headmasters letter shows that he was detained in 8th standard. Therefore at the worse, the petitioner could be deprived from the conversion claimed by him to the post of Driver. In this process, his compassionate appointment should not be cancelled since the post of Server does not carry any minimum qualification. 5. A reference is made to the Judgment of the Division Bench in P.Sekar v. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and others reported in 2008 Writ L.R. 902. In that Judgment of the Division Bench in Paragraph 8r this Court has held as follows: "8. Keeping in view the fact that there is no finding nor any material to indicate that the petitioner had knowingly submitted a false mark sheet and such question would be ultimately decided in the pending criminal case and taking into consideration the social strata from which the petitioner comes, we feel in the interest of justice that punishment of termination of service is required to be modified and instead we direct that the petitioner shall be reverted to the post of Flock Man and shall not be considered for promotion to any other post. As a consequence of such order, it is further directed that the period during which the petitioner has not worked, shall not be counted for any purpose." Therefore, he pleaded some relief may be given to the petitioner. 6. However, Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan, learned counsel appearing for the corporation stoutly opposed for granting any such relief. He stated that the decision of the Division Bench will not apply to the present case in all its four corners and there are some distinguishing features. 7. In that case, the Division Bench gave liberty to the department to proceed afresh, in case, the criminal case against the workman ends in conviction. Such a contingency is not available in the present case. It is an admitted case that the Management never proceeded against the workman with any criminal action. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner can be countenanced. The petitioner will not be allowed to loose even his entry level post of Server/Cleaner in the canteen when there is no educational qualification prescribed for such a post. 8. Hence, the writ petitions stands allowed. The award of the Labour Court will stand set aside. The first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Server cum Cleaner. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Without granting full backwages the petitioner will be entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as backwages. However, the interregnum period will be treated as service for all purpose. No costs.