Judgment D. Murugesan, J. The writ appeal is filed at the instance of the writ petitioner questioning the order in partly allowing the writ petition. The appellant was appointed and he joined the services of the second respondent-management of M/s Tan India Limited (Wattle Extract Division), Mettupalayam on 28. 74. While he was working as an Operator, a back fire occurred in spray dryer plant on 12. 90 due to the tripping of exhaust motor in the burner of spray dryer plant. In view of the said accident, two feet length of cable wire was damaged. A show cause notice dated 112. 90 was issued calling upon the appellant to explain the cause, as he was in-charge of the spray dryer plant. Though an explanation dated 212. 90 was submitted, not satisfied with the explanation, a charge sheet was issued on 2. 91 and an enquiry was conducted. Subsequently another show cause notice dated 14. 91 was issued on the ground that on 14. 91, during B shift at about 16.00 hours, the appellant operated the spray dryer plant-II without informing the shift electrician resulting in overloading of the generator. The act of the appellant was considered to be a misconduct under Clause 14(2) of the Standing Orders. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued and an enquiry was conducted. In both the enquiries, the charges were held to be proved. Therefore, a second show cause notice dated 28. 91 was issued and the explanation being not satisfactory, the appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 1. 92. 2. The appellant raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.221 of 1992 and the said dispute was adjudicated by the Labour Court, Coimbatore. Before the Labour Court, neither the appellant nor the second respondent-management examined any witness. But the appellant marked two documents, namely, J.C.Sekhars fitness certificate and identity card. On behalf of the second respondent-management, as many as 65 documents were marked. The Labour Court allowed the industrial dispute in part and held that the appellant is not entitled to reinstatement, but is entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards compensation. 3. The said award was questioned by the appellant in W.P.No.12512 of 1995. The second respondent-management also filed W.P.No.15141 of 1995 challenging the very same award of granting compensation. The Labour Court allowed the industrial dispute in part and held that the appellant is not entitled to reinstatement, but is entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards compensation. 3. The said award was questioned by the appellant in W.P.No.12512 of 1995. The second respondent-management also filed W.P.No.15141 of 1995 challenging the very same award of granting compensation. Both the writ petitions were heard by the learned single Judge and by a common order dated 20.6.2002, the learned Judge allowed partly the writ petition filed by the appellant and directed the payment of compensation of Rs.60,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/-as awarded by the Labour Court. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the management was dismissed. 4. The said order is questioned in this writ appeal by the appellant. It is not brought to our notice as to the filing of any appeal by the management. 5. We have carefully considered the respective grievance of the appellant-workman as well as the second respondent-management. The learned Judge had considered elaborately the award as well as the entire enquiry proceedings. In fact the learned Judge had observed that no oral evidence was let in by both the parties and as against the two documents filed by the appellant, the management had filed 65 documents. The finding of the Labour Court that the appellant did not advert to any of the materials placed before the enquiry officer by the management was considered by this Court and, as they being factual finding, have not been interfered. It appears that before the Labour Court, it was primarily contended that inasmuch as the past record of service was not taken into consideration, the quantum of punishment is disproportionate. The learned Judge, while considering the said submission, found that inasmuch as the punishment was imposed based upon the proved misconduct and not based upon past record of service and merely because the second show cause notice did not mention the past record of service by itself would not vitiate the order of dismissal. Holding so, the learned Judge upheld the finding of the Labour Court in the said respect. 6. Holding so, the learned Judge upheld the finding of the Labour Court in the said respect. 6. As far as the next challenge as to the non-application of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, the learned Judge had found that considering the proved misconduct, the punishment is appropriate and in the absence of any mitigating circumstances and taking note of the seriousness of the proved charges, the punishment of dismissal is warranted. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the appellant had put in long number of years of service, this Court had only interfered in the quantum of compensation by increasing the said amount to Rs.60,000/-. 7. Law has been well settled that the findings rendered by the Labour Court after appreciation of evidence should not be interfered in a writ jurisdiction, as this Court does not act as a Court of appeal while considering the challenge to the award. That apart, unless the award is so perverse and any finding is not supported by document or the award is beyond the scope of reference, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the findings and the consequential award of the Labour Court. In the given case, not only the award was based on findings and supported by materials, but the said award has also been affirmed by the learned single Judge and in that circumstance, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with such finding at the appellate stage is totally uncalled for. 8. As far as the non consideration of the past record of service is concerned, again law is now settled that unless the Standing Orders mandate the consideration of the past record of service, a mere non consideration of the past record of service at the time when the punishment is imposed would not vitiate the order of punishment. Only when the management considered the past record of service in order to arrive at a conclusion as to the imposition of definite punishment, the employee would be entitled to an opportunity. In the event no such past record of service is taken into consideration and the quantum of punishment is solely based on the proved charges and their gravity, the contention that the past record of service ought to have been taken into consideration is totally unacceptable. In the event no such past record of service is taken into consideration and the quantum of punishment is solely based on the proved charges and their gravity, the contention that the past record of service ought to have been taken into consideration is totally unacceptable. For the said proposition, we may usefully refer to the two unreported Division Bench judgments of this Court in W.A.No.2311 of 1987 dated 211. 90 (The Management of Engine Valves Ltd. v The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras and another) and in W.A.No.207 of 1991 dated 22. 91 (C.K.Kothandaraman v. Chief Regional Manager, State Bank of India and another). That apart, the learned Judge, having found that the charges are proved and on the proved charges the award should not be interfered, nevertheless, had shown indulgence by enhancing the compensation from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.60,000/- considering the long number of service put in by the appellant. Such an order, in our considered view, requires no interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.