Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the Management of M/s.Sundaram Industries Ltd., running its Rubber Factory located at Kochadai, Madurai. They have filed the writ petition, seeking to challenge the Award passed by the first respondent Industrial Tribunal made in I.D.No.115 of 2000 dated 30.01.2010. 2. By the impugned Award, the Tribunal dealt with the dismissal of the 16 workmen covered by the Government Order of reference in G.O.(D).No.271, Labour and Employment, dated 27.03.2002 which was raised by the second respondent Trade Union. 3. The Industrial Tribunal, by its Award dated 30.01.2010 held that in respect of Sl.No.15, Velusamy as he had resigned and settled his account, he is not eligible to get any benefit. In so far as Sl.Nos.11 and 15 M/s.Ramasamy and Rajendaran were concerned, no relief was granted to them as they have also settled their accounts. In so far as Sl.No.13 Mahadevan, Sl.No.2 Mani and Sl.No.1 Thangasamy were concerned as they had reached the age of superannuation, though the order of dismissal as against them was set aside, the Tribunal, after declaring that they are deemed to be in service also held that they were entitled to 50% of the backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation. Excluding those 5 workers, the dismissal orders of other 10 workers were set aside and they were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but only with 50% of the backwages. 4. The writ petition was admitted on 27.04.2010. Pending the writ petition, in M.P.Nos.1 to 10 of 2010, this Court granted them interim relief on condition that the petitioner Management deposits 50% of the backwages to the credit of the ID. On such deposit, the Tribunal was directed to invest the amounts in a long term Fixed Deposits, initially for a period of three years. In respect of A.Govindan, it was noted that he had reached the age of superannuation on 04.04.2010 and he was not eligible for payment under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. But the Management was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as adhoc payment. In respect of Mp.Nos.3 to 10 filed by other workers, a direction was given to pay Rs.4,065/- as monthly salary towards 17-B wages with liberty to the Management to move the Court in case any workmen is engaged on gainful employment. 5. But the Management was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as adhoc payment. In respect of Mp.Nos.3 to 10 filed by other workers, a direction was given to pay Rs.4,065/- as monthly salary towards 17-B wages with liberty to the Management to move the Court in case any workmen is engaged on gainful employment. 5. Heard the arguments of Ms.D.Veda, learned counsel for the petitioner Management and Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.T.Ramkumar, counsel for the second respondent Trade Union. 6. It is the case of the second respondent Trade Union that the petitioner Management was part of the larger TVS Group and they never allowed any healthy trade Union to come up in the industry. Extraordinary conditions were unilaterally on them. After the formation of the second respondent Union, they have raised several disputes. In the petitioner company, the work of the moulders involved in the process of cures of rubber products. The quality control of the manufacturing products was done by a separate team consisting of a Manager, a Supervisor and 10 workmen. The Management disbanded the said quality control team and directed the moulders themselves to do the quality control work on the promise that they will be paid higher wages for the extra work done by them. They also directed the moulders to put all the produced rubber washers in a gunny bag and to tie them. Earlier this work was done by another Work team. For doing this extra work, the Management also promised to pay higher wages. If the work which was given additionally, if done by the workmen, it may require one hour more to finish the work. For doing the work for extra one hour, no over time wages were paid to them. There was also no work load settlement with the Union regarding production norms. During the year 1998, unilaterally, the work load of the workers were increased without due notice. 7. The Union raised an industrial dispute and the dispute is still pending. Even during the pendency of the dispute, the Management brought a weighing machine to the production area and orally directed the workers to weigh all the manufactured items after the shift hours. This action of the Management was contrary to Section 33(1)(a) of the I.D.Act as no approval of the Conciliation Officer was obtained. Even during the pendency of the dispute, the Management brought a weighing machine to the production area and orally directed the workers to weigh all the manufactured items after the shift hours. This action of the Management was contrary to Section 33(1)(a) of the I.D.Act as no approval of the Conciliation Officer was obtained. But their dispute relating to the unilateral imposition of service condition was declined to be referred by the Government. When the members of the second respondent Union reported to work, the Management refused to permit them to do the old type of work and hence, they suspended 16 workers. Subsequent to their suspension, charge memos were given to them and domestic enquiries were conducted only in respect of 13 workers. In respect of M/s.Thangasamy and Harimurthy, they were straightaway dismissed without affording any opportunities. The enquiries were held against the principles of natural justice. 8. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised which was referred to for adjudication by G.O.(D).No.271 Labour and Employment, dated 27.03.2002. On such reference, the second respondent Union filed a claim statement dated 14.03.2001. Notice was issued to the petitioner Management. On receipt of the notice, the Management filed a counter statement dated 12.07.2002 justifying the dismissal. 9. Before the Industrial Tribunal, 14 workers examined themselves individually as W1 to W14. On the side of the Management, one K.Damotharan was examined as M.W.1. While on the side of the workers, 151 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W1 to W151, on the side of the petitioner Management, 248 documents were filed and marked as Exs.M1 to M248. 10. It must be noted that the same Trade Union's dispute in I.D.No.14 of 1997 relating to the introduction of production targets without notice under Section 9A of the I.D.Act was upheld by the Tribunal vide Award dated 20.09.2007 when the second respondent Union challenged the said Award in W.P.No.13921 of 2000, it was rejected by this Court vide judgment dated 22.03.2010. This Court held that there was no case for interfering with the introduction of new production norms. 11. The Industrial Tribunal framed six issues on the Industrial Dispute. The first issue was whether there was any violation of Section 33 of the I.D.Act? The Tribunal found that there was no violation of Section 33(1)(a). This Court held that there was no case for interfering with the introduction of new production norms. 11. The Industrial Tribunal framed six issues on the Industrial Dispute. The first issue was whether there was any violation of Section 33 of the I.D.Act? The Tribunal found that there was no violation of Section 33(1)(a). With reference to issue Nos.2 to 4 relating to the conduct of the enquiries, the Tribunal found that there was no infirmity with the procedures adopted in the enquiry. Even in case of the ex parte enquiries, it held that sufficient opportunities were given to the workers. With reference to the last two issues, viz., 5 and 6 relating to the penalties, the Tribunal found that the Management did not take into consideration the magnitude, nature and degree of misconduct and the circumstances under which misconduct was exhibited. It noted that in respect of minor misconducts, awarding of major penalties themselves can be construed to be "unfair labour practice" prohibited under Section 25-T read with Schedule V of the I.D.Act. The Tribunal found that the case was pending for more than 10 years and that imposition of a penalty of denial of annual increment for one year will be a sufficient punishment. However, on the question of awarding of backwages, it held that the same is not automatic and therefore, in the interest of justice 50% of backwages can be given to the workmen. 12. Attacking the relief given by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the petitioner Management contended that a soft glove treatment to the delinquent workers in a factory is likely to result in chaos, ultimately harming and damaging beyond repair the national discipline (Refer para 8 of the judgment reported in 1988 II CLR 142 [Manager, Central India Flour Mills, Bhopal v. Mohd Ishaq Sagir and Another] 13. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (1) CLR 879 [G.M.M.Co. Ltd v. Labour Court, Madras and another] for contending that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the I.D.Act, the Labour Court ought to have gone into the evidence and then decide the matter. 14. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (1) CLR 879 [G.M.M.Co. Ltd v. Labour Court, Madras and another] for contending that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the I.D.Act, the Labour Court ought to have gone into the evidence and then decide the matter. 14. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2006 SCC (L&S) 429 [State of M.P. And others v. Arjunlal Rajak] for contending that backwages should not be granted mechanically, even if the Court had come to a conclusion that a termination was invalid. 15. The learned counsel further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2009 (4) L.L.N.91 [Biecco Lawrie, Ltd., and another v. State of West Bengal and another] for contending that even in cases where workmen were found guilty of abusing the supervisors and found negligent in duty the Court should not order reinstatement. If the work assigned to a worker is not performed even in such circumstances, it should not be a ground to set aside a valid dismissal order.