JUDGMENT:- 1. This writ petition is filed by the State owned Transport Corporation having its Headquarters at Chennai. In this writ petition, they have come forward to challenge the award dated 24.05.2006 passed in I.D.No.623 of 1999 by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai, the first respondent herein. 2. By the impugned award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent workman without backwages, but with continuity of service. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 09.06.2008. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the second respondent workman filed two applications, one for vacating the interim order and another for grant of wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By an order dated 07.07.2009, this Court disposed of the interim applications by making the interim stay absolute and also issued direction to pay monthly wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Subsequently, the matter was referred for resolution of dispute by Permanent and Continuous High Court Lok Adalat. But the Lok Adalat was unable to solve the dispute and returned the papers for deciding the matter on merits, vide order dated 25.10.2010. 4. Since the petitioner Management does not file the documents filed before the Labour Court, this Court directed the Registry to summon the records from the Labour Court and accordingly, original records were summoned and perused by this Court. 5. It is seen from the records that the second respondent workman was joined as a Driver in the petitioner Corporation and was suspended from duty on 15.01.1997 alleging four charges against him. The charges levelled against the petitioner was that on 14.01.1997, he entered the time keeper's room along with the duty Conductor and shouted against the Assistant Engineer by name Jayakumar in a rough and rude manner that he made certain defects in his posting vehicle and when the said Jayakumar replied that all the complaints were attended, the second respondent workman did not accept the word of the said Assistant Engineer and he threatened the Assistant Engineer. At that time, the Branch Manager of Avadi depot was present in the time office and he called the second respondent workman and enquired into the complaint. The second respondent made same complaint against the Branch Manager in a rude manner, who was present at that time in the time office. At that time, the Branch Manager of Avadi depot was present in the time office and he called the second respondent workman and enquired into the complaint. The second respondent made same complaint against the Branch Manager in a rude manner, who was present at that time in the time office. He tried to convince the second respondent and explained that the defects were rectified on 13.01.1997 itself and if he is not satisfied, he can take another spare vehicle. Without listening to the word of the Branch Manager, the workman suddenly slapped on the left cheek of the Branch Manager and also made an attempt to assault the Branch Manager. The other staff including the Security Guard, who were present in the spot, took away the workman from the place of incident and sent him outside the depot gate. On this incident, a detailed report was given to the petitioner Corporation for taking necessary action and thereafter, the workman was placed under suspension, with effect from 15.01.1997. He was issued with a charge memo dated 17.01.1997 and his explanations were called for. The workman denied the allegations levelled against him. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer by his report found him guilty of the charges. Along with the enquiry report, the second respondent workman was given a second show cause notice and the workman gave his explanation to the petitioner Corporation. Not satisfied with his explanation and taking into account his past conduct, the second respondent workman was dismissed from service on 23.07.1997. 6. As against the dismissal order dated 23.07.1997, the second respondent workman raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Government Labour Officer. The said Conciliation Officer, as he could not bring about mediation, gave his failure report dated 18.01.1999. On the strength of the failure report, the second respondent workman filed a claim statement dated Nil. 7. The dispute was registered as I.D.No.623/1999 and notice was issued to the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner Corporation filed a counter statement dated 07.03.2000. In the counter statement, it was stated that by not making any complaint to the police station will not minimize the gravity of misconduct of the workman. 8. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and marked 10 documents as Exs.W1 to W10. The petitioner Corporation filed a counter statement dated 07.03.2000. In the counter statement, it was stated that by not making any complaint to the police station will not minimize the gravity of misconduct of the workman. 8. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and marked 10 documents as Exs.W1 to W10. The Management examined one Janarthanan as M.W.1 and on their side, 11 documents were marked as Exs.M1 to M11. Ex.M9 is the copy of the past service record of the workman. Ex.M11 series is the basic report given to the petitioner Corporation regarding the incident. 9. The Labour Court on analysis of the materials placed before it, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that there was no violation of principles of natural justice in the procedure adopted in the enquiry. The Labour Court also held that it did not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. But however, curiously in para 7 of the award, the Labour Court recorded as follows: "7.)..... The evidence of the eye witness as well as the victim before the Enquiry Officer fortifies that wordy alterations between the workman and the Branch Manager resulted in slapping. The actual wordy alterations between the parties had not been elicited during domestic enquiry and, therefore, the utterances which actually provoked the petitioner to slap his own superior is not known ...................Considering all the above facts, this Court feels in the interest of justice that lesser punishment in lieu of dismissal will be proper one. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is now aged about 53 years and his service will also be for another 5 to 6 years only. Instead of dismissal, withholding of full backwages on the basis of "no work no pay" will meet the ends of justice......." 10. Ms. Rita Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation has stated that having found the enquiry valid and also having held that the charges are proved, there is no question of showing any sympathy to the workman, especially when he has assaulted his superior in the presence of witnesses, which even according to the Labour Court was clearly found proved. Ms. Rita Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation has stated that having found the enquiry valid and also having held that the charges are proved, there is no question of showing any sympathy to the workman, especially when he has assaulted his superior in the presence of witnesses, which even according to the Labour Court was clearly found proved. Once the enquiry is held to be fair and findings are recorded against the workman, then the question of invoking Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for series of misconduct will not arise. In this context, she refers to a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Hombe Gowda Educational Trust Vs. State of Karnataka [ 2006 (1) SCC 430 ]. The Supreme Court, in paras 19, 20 and 30 of the judgment, has held as follows: "19.) Assaulting a superior at a workplace amounts to an act of gross indiscipline. The respondent is a teacher. Even under grave provocation a teacher is not expected to abuse the head of the institution in a filthy language and assault him with a chappal. Punishment of dismissal from services, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate so as to shock one's conscience. 20.) A person, when dismissed from service, is put to a great hardship but that would not mean that a grave misconduct should go unpunished. Although the doctrine of proportionality may be applicable in such matters, but a punishment of dismissal from service for such a misconduct cannot be said to be unheard of. Maintenance of discipline of an institution is equally important. Keeping the aforementioned principles in view, we may hereinafter notice a few recent decisions of this Court. 30.) This Court has come a long way from its earlier viewpoints. The recent trend in the decisions of this Court seek to strike a balance between the earlier approach to the industrial relation wherein only the interest of the workmen was sought to be protected with the avowed object of fast industrial growth of the country. In several decisions of this Court it has been noticed how discipline at the workplace/industrial undertakings received a setback. In view of the change in economic policy of the country, it may not now be proper to allow the employees to break the discipline with impunity. Our country is governed by rule of law. In several decisions of this Court it has been noticed how discipline at the workplace/industrial undertakings received a setback. In view of the change in economic policy of the country, it may not now be proper to allow the employees to break the discipline with impunity. Our country is governed by rule of law. All actions, therefore, must be taken in accordance with law. Law declared by this Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution, as noticed in the decisions noticed supra, categorically demonstrates that the Tribunal would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the employers unless an appropriate case is made out there for. The Tribunal being inferior to this Court was bound to follow the decisions of this Court which are applicable to the facts of the present case in question. The Tribunal can neither ignore the ratio laid down by this Court nor refuse to follow the same." 11. In the light of the findings recorded and the legal precedent referred to, it is not a fit case where any relief can be given to the second respondent workman and the Labour Court clearly erred in directing reinstatement of the workman, though without backwages and it did not take into account the binding precedent of the Supreme Court made in this regard. Hence, the impugned award dated 24.05.2006 passed in I.D.No.623/1999 by the first respondent Labour Court stands set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.