Judgment :- R. BANUMATHI, J. Challenge in this appeal is the order made in W.P.No.47940 of 2006 (dated 20.7.2010), whereby the single Judge modified the award of the Labour Court, Salem in so far as ordering continuity of service from the date of dismissal i.e., from 4.7.1996 till the date of the award of the Labour Court dated 31.3.1995. 2. The brief facts are that the 2nd respondent joined in the service of appellant Corporation as Conductor on 27.8.1986. While he was in service, he committed several acts of misconduct, for which he was awarded minor punishments. The appellant Corporation issued a charge memo dated 16.7.1994 for his continued absence from 20.6.1994 onwards without any permission or leave. Enquiry revealed that a murder case was registered against the 2nd respondent in Crime No.136 of 1995 on the file of Kunnathur Police Station. The explanation of 2nd respondent to the charge sheet dated 16.7.1994 was not convincing and satisfactory and a domestic enquiry was ordered. Ample opportunity was given to the 2nd respondent to participate in the enquiry and the 2nd respondent also participated. The Enquiry Officer held that charges levelled against the 2nd respondent as proved and taking into consideration the enquiry report, appellant Management passed the order of dismissal on 4.7.1996 and 2nd respondent received the dismissal order immediately. 3. Challenging the dismissal order, the 2nd respondent raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.146 of 1999 before the Labour Court after a delay of more than three years. Management resisted the said dispute contending that the 2nd respondent was continuously absent from duty and that the punishment imposed on the 2nd respondent is proportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent. Observing that the 2nd respondent was not charge-sheeted for involving in a murder case, but was charge-sheeted for continuous absence from duty and the 2nd respondent explained the situation under which circumstances he was prevented from reporting for duty. Labour Court further held that since the 2nd respondent was arrested by the police and was in jail for sometime, he could not report for duty and since the 2nd respondent explained the circumstances under which he was prevented from attending duty, the 2nd respondent was entitled to be reinstated in service. Labour Court further held that since the 2nd respondent was arrested by the police and was in jail for sometime, he could not report for duty and since the 2nd respondent explained the circumstances under which he was prevented from attending duty, the 2nd respondent was entitled to be reinstated in service. Setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service, Labour Court directed the Management to reinstate the 2nd respondent into service with continuity of service and other benefits, but without back wages. 4. Challenging the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.146 of 1999, the appellant Corporation filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.47940 of 2006. The learned single Judge observed that the 2nd respondent was prevented from attending duty from 27.8.1994 to 28.1.1995 due to his involvement in the criminal case and conviction and ultimately the conviction was set aside in the criminal appeal. Pointing out that the 2nd respondent has not reported for duty because of his involvement in the criminal case and conviction, the learned single Judge held that the award of the Labour Court in ordering continuity of service from the date of dismissal i.e., from 4.7.1996 till the date of award of the Labour Court dated 31.3.2005 cannot be justified. On those findings, the learned single judge modified the award of the Labour Court only in sofar as ordering continuity of service and other benefits for the period from 4.7.1996 to 31.3.2005. The Writ Court made it clear that the earlier service rendered by the 2nd respondent prior to the order of dismissal shall be counted for all the purposes viz., fixing for salary from the date of award and for other terminal benefits. 5. Aggrieved by the order in W.P.No.47940 of 2006, appellant Corporation has preferred this appeal. Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for appellant contended that the Writ Court failed to see that the 2nd respondent's unauthorised absence was due to his involvement in a murder case in Crime No.136 of 1995 on the file of Kunnathur Police Station and conviction. It was contended that Labour Court and the learned single judge failed to see that the Industrial Dispute was raised by the 2nd respondent after a lapse of more than three years and writ court ought to have set aside the award of the Labour Court. It was contended that Labour Court and the learned single judge failed to see that the Industrial Dispute was raised by the 2nd respondent after a lapse of more than three years and writ court ought to have set aside the award of the Labour Court. Learned counsel further contended that Management has proved that it is a case of unauthorised absence of the workmen before the domestic enquiry and when the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on the materials, the order of reinstatement with terminal benefits is not legally sustainable. 6. Notice was served upon the second respondent/workman and his name was also printed in the cause list. But the second respondent has neither entered appearance nor present. Hence, we considered the contention of the appellant and carefully examined the available materials. 7. The facts are not in dispute that because of his involvement in Crime No.136 of 1995 on the file of Kunnathur Police Station, which resulted in conviction, the 2nd respondent was imprisoned for three years. The conviction imposed on the 2nd respondent was in force for about 9 years and the conviction was set aside in the criminal appeal by the Division Bench of this Court. Even though the 2nd respondent was absent from duty from 20.6.1994 till the date of passing dismissal order i.e., 4.7.1996 and the 2nd respondent has explained the reasons for his absence, the fact remains that he faced the conviction till the appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench on 28.1.2010 allowing the appeal by giving benefit of doubt along with four other accused persons. When the 2nd respondent faced the conviction, the continuity of service from the date of dismissal i.e., from 4.7.1996 till the date of the award of the Labour Court dated 31.3.2005 is not justifiable. The learned single Judge rightly held that giving continuity of service from 4.7.1996 till 31.3.2005 is not justifiable on the facts and circumstances of the case and thereby protected the interest of the Management. The learned single Judge rightly held that the earlier service rendered by the 2nd respondent prior to the order of dismissal i.e., 4.7.1996 shall be counted for all purposes viz., for fixing the salary and also for other terminal benefits and thereby protected the interest of the workman also. 8. The learned single Judge rightly held that the earlier service rendered by the 2nd respondent prior to the order of dismissal i.e., 4.7.1996 shall be counted for all purposes viz., for fixing the salary and also for other terminal benefits and thereby protected the interest of the workman also. 8. In exercise of its discretion when the Labour Court directed reinstatement, exercising Writ Jurisdiction, High Court shall not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in modifying the sentence. Since the continuity of service from the date of dismissal i.e., 4.7.1996 till the date of the award of the Labour Court dated 31.3.2005 was not justifiable, the learned single Judge rightly modified the award of the Labour Court insofar as granting continuity of service from 4.7.1996 till 31.3.2005. We do not find any reason warranting interference with the order of the learned single Judge. 9. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.