JUDGMENT:- 1. Heard both sides. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Management challenging the award dated 15.02.2006 passed by the first respondent Labour Court, in I.D.No.612/2000. By the impugned award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent workman with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, but without backwages. 3. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 12.03.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay. Subsequently, on 09.07.2007, this Court directed the petitioner Management to deposit a sum of Rs.57,122/- representing the backwages within four weeks. On such deposit, the Labour Court was directed to invest the same in any one of the Nationalised Bank for a period of three years, with liberty to the workman to withdraw the interest at the interval of every six months. 4. In the application filed for direction to pay last drawn wages, this Court, by order dated 09.07.2007 directed the petitioner Management to pay last drawn wages starting from August 2007 till the disposal of the writ petition. Subsequently, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for resolution of the dispute. But however, the parties are at variance and the matter has come back to this Court without being resolved. 5. It is seen from the records that the second respondent was working as a Driver in the petitioner Hotel since 12.03.1991. He was discharging his duties sincerely. He was also got award for regular attendance for over nine years. He was placed under suspension on 08.05.1999 pending enquiry. He was given a charge sheet cum show cause notice on 13.05.1999. The charges levelled against him was that while he was required to park the hi-loader bearing registration No.TN-21-Z-8115 next to Lufthansa Aircraft, namely Flight No. L.H 759 so as to load the packages into the Aircraft, he parked it in such a manner that there was a gap of two feet between the Aircraft and the hi-loader making it impossible to load the items. The second charge was that when the Supervisor, Flight Catering, requested him to park the hi-loader close to the Aircraft, instead of obeying his order, the workman abused the Supervisor in foul and vulgar language at the Airport in the presence of passengers and Airport staff. The second charge was that when the Supervisor, Flight Catering, requested him to park the hi-loader close to the Aircraft, instead of obeying his order, the workman abused the Supervisor in foul and vulgar language at the Airport in the presence of passengers and Airport staff. The third charge was that on 06.05.1999, around noon, he broke open the seal of a cabinet containing the bonded goods of the Airlines and took out a soft drink bottle and consumed it. 6. The petitioner denied the charges vide his explanation dated 21.05.1999. In his explanation, he has stated that for over three months, there was a leakage of oil from the Hydraulic Cylinder, when the platform was raised to the Aircraft door and hence, the platform was raised up to one feet below the Aircraft door. He also brought this problem to the notice of the authorities. He further explained that the hi-loader could be lifted upto two feet below the Aircraft door, since the oil in the tank was insufficient. He further submitted that catering items were being loaded and that the workers were not totally stopped. He also stated that the vehicle was driven by one Poovalingam and he had gone to the Hotel to get the oil. The other allegations levelled against him were denied. 7. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the workman, an enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, the petitioner Management examined three witnesses namely Mr. Ghyas Alam, Mr. Poovalingam and Mr. Thirumalai Kumar and also marked 9 documents as Exs.M1 to M9. The workman examined himself as D.W.1. The statement given by the workman was marked as Ex.D1. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 22.01.2000 has held that the charges levelled against the workman have been proved. 8. The petitioner Management issued a second show cause notice on 24.01.2000. After receiving his explanation dated 10.02.2000, the petitioner Management dismissed him from service on 05.04.2000. The petitioner Management also sent a cheque for Rs.31,905.82 to the workman towards full and final settlement. But however, the cheque was returned by the workman to the petitioner Management with a covering letter dated 08.04.2000. 9. The workman thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation-I), Chennai, under Section 2(A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Conciliation Officer, as he could not bring about mediation, gave a failure report dated 21.08.2000. 9. The workman thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation-I), Chennai, under Section 2(A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Conciliation Officer, as he could not bring about mediation, gave a failure report dated 21.08.2000. On the strength of the failure report, the workman filed a claim statement on 01.10.2000. The said dispute was registered as I.D.No.612/2000 and notice was ordered to the petitioner Management. The petitioner Management filed a counter statement dated nil. The workman also filed a written statement on 07.12.2004. 10. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and on the side of the petitioner Management one Mr. Swaminathan was examined as M.W.1. On the side of the workman, 14 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W1 to W14. On the side of the petitioner Management, 19 documents were filed and marked as Exs.M1 to M19. 11. The Labour Court held that there is no fault in the enquriy and the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer was not perverse. On the question of disproportionate penalty, the Labour Court held that the workman's past services were not considered by the Management and the punishment imposed on the workman was disproportionate and therefore, it reinstated the workman with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, but without backwages. However, the Labour Court was wrong in stating that the past services has to be taken into account before imposing the penalty. First of all, there is no reference to the Standing Orders in this regard. Secondly, the Honourable Supreme Court vide its judgment in Pandian Roadways Corporation Limited VS. N. Balakrishnan [ 2007 (9) SCC 755 ] has held that if the charges themselves are serious, the question of looking into the past records may not arise. Though in the present case, it is the stand of the workman that he has worked for nine years, the same was given for continuous attendance. The Labour Court held that even assuming that the charges were proved; the punishment imposed on the workman was disproportionate. In this regard, the Labour Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in RAM KANT MISRA VS. THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [ 1989 (I) LLJ 71 ]. The Labour Court held that even assuming that the charges were proved; the punishment imposed on the workman was disproportionate. In this regard, the Labour Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in RAM KANT MISRA VS. THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [ 1989 (I) LLJ 71 ]. The other charge that he took out a soft drink bottle also cannot be taken very seriously, since being the open Airport, that too in the noon time, may be the workman could have felt thirsty. In any event, the workman did not have any such defence and has denied the charges. The only serious charge was that he abused his Supervisor. With reference to not parking the hi-loader closer to the Aircraft, the workman gave certain mechanical problems. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has committed any error in this regard. Notwithstanding the fact that the past record was not considered, even the proved charge cannot be said to be so serious warranting dismissing the workman. At the same time, when this Court suggested the parties to arrive at negotiations towards monetary settlement and the matter was adjourned, they could not come out with any agreed figure and the claim made by the workman was on the high side, namely he was demanding more than Rs.14.5 Lakhs. But the petitioner Management was not willing to give any such time as they were aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court. In view of the strained relationship, this Court is of the opinion that the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be modified into one of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 12. Therefore, considering the fact that the workman was working for nearly nine years and the last drawn wages was around Rs.4,500/-(though he claims that a similarly placed workman has got Rs.8,000/-at present), this Court is of the opinion that it is suffice that the petitioner Management pays a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) towards final settlement of all claims made by the second respondent workman. The said payment should be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such payment, the second respondent workman will not have any claim against the petitioner Management, in respect of his non-employment. 13. The said payment should be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such payment, the second respondent workman will not have any claim against the petitioner Management, in respect of his non-employment. 13. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction. No costs.