Judgment 1. The petitioner is the State owned Transport Corporation having its headquarters at Coimbatore. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Award passed by the second respondent Labour Court, Coimbatore made in I.D.No.161 of 1998, dated 8.7.2004. By the impugned Award, the labour court held that while the workman was not entitled for reinstatement, but however from the date of his dismissal till the date of the Award, i.e., 8.7.2004, he is entitled for backwages. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 4.9.2007. Pending the writ petition, this court granted an interim stay. On notice from this court, on behalf of the first respondent, initially one counsel had entered appearance on 7.8.2007. Subsequently, on change of vakalat, M/s.M.Rajendiran and V.Sarath Babu have entered appearance with the consent from the previous counsel. The said counsel for the workman also wrote a letter to the Registry on 17.8.2009 seeking for reference of the dispute for resolution by the Lok Adalat. In that letter, he had mentioned that the dispute was only relating to backwages, which was likely to be settled through mediation. Accordingly the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. Before the Lok Adalat, the matter was called for more than five times and no one has appeared. Therefore, the Lok Adalat by an order dated 17.11.2009 had returned the matter to this court to be dealt with on merits. Accordingly, the matter was heard on 24.02.2012. Since original records were not filed before this court, the Registry was directed to summon the original records. Accordingly records were summoned and perused by this court. 3. It is seen from records that the first respondent Workman was employed as a Security Guard for about eight years in the Cheran Transport Corporation before its bifurcation into CTC and Mahakavi Bharathiyar Transport Corporation. He was allotted to work in the Mahakavi Bharathiyar Transport Corporation attached to Gudalur Branch as a security guard. He became the member of a trade union affiliated to Bharathi Mazdoor Sangh. He claimed that he always used to raise issues affecting the interest of the workmen more particularly Ex-servicemen. Because of that, he used to be frequently transferred on the false charges. Five show causes notices were issued to him. Even though he gave replies, they appointed one Enquiry Officer, who was a retired Deputy Tahsildar, Udagamandalam. Five individual enquiries were held in respect of five notices. Because of that, he used to be frequently transferred on the false charges. Five show causes notices were issued to him. Even though he gave replies, they appointed one Enquiry Officer, who was a retired Deputy Tahsildar, Udagamandalam. Five individual enquiries were held in respect of five notices. The charges were found proved. In the first charge sheet dated 16.7.1994, the charge against the petitioner was that he had misbehaved with the Assistant Traffic Controller of the Branch ad spoke to him in an arrogant manner. He also caught hold of the neck of the Assistant Traffic Controller and pushed him out of the branch. In this process, a cut injury was inflicted on the traffic controller. He also misbehaved in a high-handed manner and made derogatory remarks about the corporation. 4. The charge sheet dated 30.5.1994 related to an incident dated 21.5.1994. While the petitioner was on duty in Gudalur Branch, there was an accident in front of the gate of the branch office. The bus belonging to the corporation ran over a small girl, who died on the spot. The workman was directed by the Branch Manager to submit a report about the accident. But he had refused to give a report and also made unwanted remarks. By the charge sheet dated 9.5.1994, which related to an incident dated 8.2.1994, the workman was directed by the Branch Manager and also by the Security Officer In-charge to accompany a Van of the Corporation which was taking the scrap from Gudalur to Mettupalayam. The normal practice is to make a security person to accompany the Van to prevent pilferage of the materials enroute. The workman not only had refused to obey the order, but also raised unnecessary issues. As a result of his disobedience, the Van could not be sent at 6.00 a.m., but was sent on the next day. The petitioner had reported for duty when some one else was on duty. Therefore, he was asked to meet the Deputy Security Officer and an endorsement was also made in the attendance register. But he disobeyed the order of the Branch Manager and over the marking of 'A' in the attendance register, he had entered his signature without anyone's permission. The petitioner had reported for duty when some one else was on duty. Therefore, he was asked to meet the Deputy Security Officer and an endorsement was also made in the attendance register. But he disobeyed the order of the Branch Manager and over the marking of 'A' in the attendance register, he had entered his signature without anyone's permission. Inspite of the fact that he was asked by the Clerk not to sign the register, he made derogatory remarks about the Branch Manager and also attempted to snatch the on-duty attendance slip from the hands of the Clerk. 5. The charge sheet dated 10.12.1994 was that the workman had circulated hand bills in the name of the union containing wrong information about the disciplinary action initiated against him. This had created a wrong impression among the minds of the other workers. Therefore, a disciplinary action was directed. In the charge sheet dated 04.01.1995, it related to an incident on 31.12.1994. He had accompanied the another worker of the Corporation, who was facing the disciplinary action and enquiry was fixed for 31.12.1994 in the Udagamandalam office of the corporation. The workman went as an observer. As soon as he entered the room of the enquiry officer, he told the Enquiry officer, who was looking the file, in Tamil that "Tamil" (close the file). The Enquiry Officer asked him as to how and in what way he is concerned about his looking into the file. Then the workman got flared up and asked him "Are you the enquiry officer? Do you know how to conduct the enquiry?" and told the co-worker what was the use in talking to this man and we can speak to the Managing Director. He walked away along with the other chargesheeted employee. 6. In respect of the charge memo, dated 16.7.1994, he did not submit any explanation, but in respect of the other four charges, the explanation submitted by him was not satisfactory. The Enquiry Officer had submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the workman were proved. On the basis of the proved charges, a second show cause notice was issued on 7.7.1995. The workmen gave his explanation on 7.7.1995. Notwithstanding the same, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 10.10.1995. Thereafter, the workmen had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer, Udagamandalam. On the basis of the proved charges, a second show cause notice was issued on 7.7.1995. The workmen gave his explanation on 7.7.1995. Notwithstanding the same, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 10.10.1995. Thereafter, the workmen had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer, Udagamandalam. The said officer after notice to the petitioner corporation had conducted conciliation proceedings. As he could not bring about any mediation, he gave a failure report dated 31.1.1997. On the strength of the failure report, the workman filed a claim statement, dated 6.4.1998. The Labour Court registered the disputed as I.D.No.161 of 1998 and issued notice to the petitioner corporation. The petitioner corporation also filed a counter statement dated 28.8.1998. Before the Labour Court, the management filed 63 documents which were marked as Exs.M.1 to M.63. The labour court tried the validity of the enquiry held by the management as a preliminary issue. 7. By the preliminary Award dated 19.11.2003, the Tribunal found that the enquiry has been conducted fair and proper and it was in accordance with the principles of natural justice. With reference the merits of the charges, the labour court held that the findings rendered in respect of the first charge Ex.M.7 dated 16.7.1994 was proved. The labour court found that he has no power to warn the other employee. In respect of the charge sheet dated 30.5.1994, the labour court held that the findings rendered in Ex.M.24 does not call for any interference. The petitioner has no right to disobey the direction given by the Branch Manager in refusing to sent a report in respect of the accident which took place in front of the depot. In respect of the charge memo dated 9.3.1994, the findings were rendered in Ex.M.39. The labour court held that the workman had deliberately disobeyed the order passed by the Branch Manager. In respect of the charge memo dated 10.12.1994, the findings were rendered in Ex.M.54 and it was held that the petitioner's attempt to circulate handbills and unwanted remarks against the management was not justified. In respect of the charge memo, dated 04.01.1995, the findings were rendered in Ex.M.60. The workman, had accompanied an another employee by name Shanmugam to attend the enquiry as an observer, had misbehaved with the enquiry officer. Therefore, there was no ground to interfere with the findings. 8. In respect of the charge memo, dated 04.01.1995, the findings were rendered in Ex.M.60. The workman, had accompanied an another employee by name Shanmugam to attend the enquiry as an observer, had misbehaved with the enquiry officer. Therefore, there was no ground to interfere with the findings. 8. After having held all the five charges were proved and the findings of the enquiry officer were justified, the labour court held that having conducted five different enquiries and five different findings, it was not open to the petitioner corporation to issue a single second show cause notice. Therefore, placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in M.V.Balu Vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and another reported in 1993 (1) LLN 867, it held that issuance of single show cause notice and asking for an explanation was not valid. At the same time since the management's contention that they lost confidence on the workman's efficacy to work as a security guard was also acceptable and held that he was not eligible for reinstatement. But at the same time, after referring to a judgment of this court in Muthiah Vs. Management of Seethalakshmi Mills reported in (2004) 105 FJR Page 1070, it held that the workman is entitled for backwages for the period of non employment, i.e., from the date of dismissal till the date of the award. It is this award which is under challenge in this writ petition. 9. The contentions raised by the management was that having found him guilty of all five charges, it was not open to the labour court to grant largesse of paying the entire backwages. The judgment relied on by the labour court relating to Seethalakshmi Mills's case has no relevance to the case on hand. Once charges were proved and punishment of dismissal was imposed, thereafter no relief can be given to the workman. This contention raised by the management is merit acceptance. In Seethalakshmi Mills's case, there was infraction of section 33(2)(b) and hence the termination became void ab initio. But in the present case, there is no such question raised regarding violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. Further the findings that the single show cause notice cannot be issued in respect of five enquiries also does not stand accepted. In Seethalakshmi Mills's case, there was infraction of section 33(2)(b) and hence the termination became void ab initio. But in the present case, there is no such question raised regarding violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. Further the findings that the single show cause notice cannot be issued in respect of five enquiries also does not stand accepted. After 42nd amendment made to the Constitution, the provisions for the second show cause notice has been removed as it has no longer been the part of the principles of natural justice. 10. Even in the reply to the second show cause notice marked as Ex.M.612, the petitioner has not chosen to raise any such objection regarding the single second show cause notice being given in respect of five enquiries. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is legal requirement for the second show cause notice. The petitioner has also not expressed any difficulty in answering the second show cause notice. On that score, the labour court cannot hold that the order of dismissal will become vitiated because of the composite second show cause notice. For the proved charges, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate as the labor court itself did not say so, but went on tangent in referring to some other judgment which has got no relevance. 11. The judgment relied on by the labour court regarding composite second show cause notice in M.V.Balu's case was rendered without taking note of the efficacy of the second show cause notice as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs.Tulsi Ram Patel reported in 1985 (3) SCC 398 . 12. Under these circumstances, this court is constrained to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand allowed and the impugned Award stands set aside. However there will be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.