Order: 1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners are the State-owned Transport Corporation having their Headquarters at Erode. In the first writ petition, W.P.No.3581 of 2004, the challenge is to the award passed by the Labour Court, Salem, in I.D.Nos.153 of 2001 dated 01.04.2003. In the second writ petition, W.P.No.3582 of 2004, the challenge is to the award passed by the same Labour Court in I.D.Nos.631 of 2000 dated 01.04.2003. In both the awards, the respective second respondent/workmen were directed to be reinstated in service without backwages, but with service continuity. 2. The second respondent in the respective writ petitions were employed as Conductors and on account of their alleged unauthorised absence, they were dismissed from service. Before they were dismissed from service, show cause notices were given to them, an enquiry was conducted, but however, the second respondent/workmen did not participate in the enquiry and therefore, they were dismissed on the basis of the result in the enquiry. The respective workmen raised industrial disputes before the Labour Officer and as the Labour Officer could not bring about any conciliation, he gave a failure report. On the strength of the failure report, each one of them filed a claim statement. In the case of the second respondent in W.P.No.3581 of 2004 (P.Boopathiraj Kumar), the dispute was registered as I.D.No.153 of 2001. He filed a claim statement dated 27.03.2001, to which the petitioner-Management filed a counter dated 'nil' January, 2002. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner-Management filed 13 documents, which were marked as Exs.M-1 to M-13. On the basis of the materials placed, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was no infirmity with the enquiry and the charge of unauthorised absence was also proved, but however, the past record was not referred to in the second show cause notice and for the gravity of offence, the punishment is disproportionate. In that view of the matter, reinstatement with continuity of service, but without backwages, was ordered. In the case of the second respondent in W.P.No.3582 of 2004 (G.Sakiratees), he filed a claim statement dated 16.10.2000 and the dispute was registered as I.D.No.631 of 2000. Notice was ordered to the petitioner-Management and the petitioner-Management filed a counter-statement dated 03.01.2002. Before the Labour Court, the Management filed 9 documents which were marked as Exs.M-1 to M-9. In the case of the second respondent in W.P.No.3582 of 2004 (G.Sakiratees), he filed a claim statement dated 16.10.2000 and the dispute was registered as I.D.No.631 of 2000. Notice was ordered to the petitioner-Management and the petitioner-Management filed a counter-statement dated 03.01.2002. Before the Labour Court, the Management filed 9 documents which were marked as Exs.M-1 to M-9. Even in this case, the Labour Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages. Challenging both the awards, the two writ petitions came to be filed. 3. Even before the admission of the writ petitions, the second respondent in W.P.No.3581 of 2004 filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.38131 of 2003 seeking for a direction to implement the award. Perhaps, on receiving notice in the said writ petition, the Management came forward to file the present writ petitions. Though the impugned awards were passed in both the writ petitions in April, 2003, the writ petitions came to be filed only during February, 2004. Though the writ petitions were admitted on 20.02.2004 and interim stay was granted, subsequently, vacate stay petitions were filed by the workmen and those miscellaneous petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 04.10.2004. This Court held that the workmen were, prima facie, entitled for reinstatement and if they are not reinstated, then the Management wound be bound to comply with the payment of last drawn wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short 'I.D. Act'). Subsequent to the said order passed by this Court, it is stated that both the workmen were reinstated by orders dated 06.05.2005. In that communication, it was stated that pursuant to the interim order and also on the request of the workmen, they were reinstated as Conductors with effect from 07.05.2005. 4. After finding that the Management was not paying the wages payable to other workmen, a grievance was made before this Court and in the case of the workman in W.P.No.3581 of 2004, this Court, by order dated 09.03.2006, granted a direction to pay the workman the current wages and the main writ petition was directed to be posted during July, 2006. In the case of the workman in W.P.No.3582 of 2004, by order dated 10.01.2008, the workman was directed to be paid the current wages. In the case of the workman in W.P.No.3582 of 2004, by order dated 10.01.2008, the workman was directed to be paid the current wages. However, the workman in W.P.No.3581 of 2004, aggrieved by the non-implementation of the order, filed a contempt petition, being Contempt Petition No.709 of 2009 alleging that the interim order has not been complied with. On notice, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Management stating that the order has been complied with and a sum of Rs.28,160.90 was paid to the workman in W.P.No.3581 of 2004 on 11.12.2007. When the contempt petition came up for hearing, both the writ petitions were taken up for final disposal at the request of the parties. 5. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management and Mr.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel representing the second respondent in both the writ petitions. 6. It is stated by the petitioner-Management that the impugned awards are illegal and once the Labour Court accepts that the charges against the second respondent-workmen have been proved, there is no question of interfering with the penalty imposed by the employer and the workmen were not entitled for any relief. 7. In the counter statement filed by the workman, P.Boopathiraj Kumar, it is stated that he has been working in the Corporation since 1989 and his services are blemishless. In the case of G.Sakiritees, it is stated that he is working from 17th January, 1990. 8. Merely because the enquiry held to be valid, it does not deprive the Labour Court from going into the findings recorded in the enquiry and even if the charges are proved, to consider the case of proportionality of the punishment in terms of Section 11-A of the I.D. Act in both the cases, the Labour Court chose to exercise the power under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act to interfere with the penalty, since the workmen have put in more than ten years of service at the time of disputes. The Labour Court has rightly held that the workmen were not entitled for the wages for the period and being deprived of their entire backwages, the workmen have not made any grievance against the same. 9. The Labour Court has rightly held that the workmen were not entitled for the wages for the period and being deprived of their entire backwages, the workmen have not made any grievance against the same. 9. In this case, in order to avoid the payment under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act, the Management themselves have reinstated the workmen by orders dated 06.05.2005 and they have been in service for the last seven years. Therefore, at this stage, to deprive them of the employment will not be justified and this only shows that the Management did not find any fault in reinstating them pending the writ petitions. This also makes it clear that the Management themselves did not want to lose the services of the workmen and they wanted to extract work from them instead of paying monthly wages in terms of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act. No further proof was forthcoming that during the period of their restoration of services, they have given any cause for further grievance. In this context, Mr.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the workmen, submitted for consideration of this Court the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri, 2009-IV-LLJ-672, to the effect that in case of absence without leave, even if the charges are admitted by the employee, in case the Court finds that the punishment is too severe, it has got power to interfere. He also referred to the judgment of this Court in Union of India vs. Registrar, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai and Anr., 2010-III-LLJ 349 (Mad.) contending that once the workman had put in long years of service, if the labour Court finds that the punishment of dismissing him only on the ground of unauthorised absence is disproportionate, the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the same, as the power to interfere with the penalty is vested only with the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. 10. In the said circumstances, both the writ petitions stand dismissed and both the awards of the Labour Court stand confirmed. The petitioner-Management is directed to comply with the entire awards within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Contempt Petition No.709 of 2009. 11. This Court is satisfied with the counter filed by the respondent-Management. The petitioner-Management is directed to comply with the entire awards within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Contempt Petition No.709 of 2009. 11. This Court is satisfied with the counter filed by the respondent-Management. It is unnecessary to pursue with the contempt. Hence, the contempt petition stands closed.