Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a State owned transport Corporation having head quarters at Villupuram. In this writ petition, they have challenged an Award made in I.D.No.433 of 2001 dated 28.04.2006. 2. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court held that non-employment of the second respondent was not justified, but after noticing that he had attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the dispute, the Labour Court directed the payment of entire back wages and other attendant benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of his superannuation and the subsequent retirement benefits. The date of dismissal of the petitioner was 22.09.1998 and the date on which he had reached the age of superannuation was 31.07.2005. Therefore, the Labour Court had ordered backwages to be paid for the period from September 1998 to July 2005. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition came to be filed. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 12.03.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court directed the Management to deposit the entire Award amount ordered by the Labour Court within a period of eight weeks failing which the interim stay will stand automatically vacated. It is rather unfortunate that after obtaining such a conditional stay order, the petitioner Management, which is a State owned Transport Corporation did not deposit the said amount, thereby allowed the application for interim stay to lapse. 4. In the mean while, the second respondent filed M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2007 seeking to vacate the interim stay and also for payment of last drawn wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.The application for stay, vacate stay and direction application were taken up together and were disposed of by a common order dated 16.08.2007. This Court held since the self-working order of stay no longer survived in the light of the Managements default, the question of vacating the stay will not arise and therefore dismissed all the miscellaneous applications including the application for payment of last drawn wages. Thereafter, the workman filed M.P.No.1 of 2009 seeking for fixing an early date for hearing the writ petition and no orders have been passed. 5. When the matter came up today, heard the arguments of Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Standing counsel for the petitioner Transport Corporation and Mr.C.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent assisted by George RY.George Williams, learned counsel. 6. 5. When the matter came up today, heard the arguments of Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Standing counsel for the petitioner Transport Corporation and Mr.C.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent assisted by George RY.George Williams, learned counsel. 6. The facts leading to the non-employment of the workmen were as follows:- The workman was employed as a Conductor by the petitioner Corporation. It was alleged that he was absented from duty from 21.11.1997 till 30.12.1997. Therefore, in the light of the Standing Orders which provides for removal of a workman if he was continuously absent for more than eight days, the Management of the Corporation took disciplinary action against the petitioner and a charge memo dated 30.12.1997 was given to him. This was followed by an Enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer by his report dated 30.03.1998 found the petitioner guilty of unauthorised absence. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 21.05.1998 was given to him and as no reply was sent, a final order was passed on 22.09.1998 dismissing the second respondent from service. 7. The second respondent raised an Industrial Dispute after a period of three years before the Government Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer as he could not bring about mediation a failure report was given to him. On the strength of the failure report, he filed a claim statement before the I Additional Labour Court. The Labour Court registered the dispute as I.D.No.433 of 2001 and notice was ordered to the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner Corporation filed a counter statement resisting the claim of the workman. 8. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and on his side, seven documents were filed and marked as Exs.W1 to W7. On the side of the petitioner Management one I.S.Thiagarajan was examined as M.W.1 and 12 documents were filed and marked as Exs.M1 to M12. 9. On an analysis of documents placed before it, the Labour Court held that the workman had sent leave letter by Certificate of Posting explaining that he was unwell due to Typhoid fever and that he could not attend to work. The Management denied the receipt of such letter. But however, during the cross examination of M.W.1, he admitted the existence of Certificate of Posting but denied the receipt of any such enclosure sent along with Certificate of Posting. The Management denied the receipt of such letter. But however, during the cross examination of M.W.1, he admitted the existence of Certificate of Posting but denied the receipt of any such enclosure sent along with Certificate of Posting. The Labour Court disbelieved the evidence of M.W.1 on the ground that inward Tapal Register was not produced for the purpose of proving that on the relevant date there was no such letter received by the Management. It is on the strength of the said finding, the Labour Court was willing to believe the version of the workman that his absence was not unjustified and he was compelled to take leave due to his typhoid fever. The Labour Court also held Managements attempt to roping that he was absent for more than 220 days starting from April 1996 cannot be allowed to be entertained since that was not forming part of the charge memo given to the workman and therefore, the Management, cannot expand the nature of charges against the workman. On the past record of the workman showing that in three previous years, he absented from duty unauthorisededly, the Labour Court recorded that punishments have been imposed on those three occasions without any enquiry and therefore, that cannot be said to be a conduct which is proved to the satisfaction of the Labour Court to deny him the relief. The Labour Court also found that the workmans statement was not accepted by the Management without any justification and since the workman had reached the age of superannuation on 31.07.2005, the Labour Court thought fit to grant only the backwages for the period of non-employment and also the terminal benefits including pension, if any, to be granted to him vide Award dated 28.04.2006. 10. The petitioner Management contended that unauthorised absence is a serious misconduct and the Labour Court should not have granted the relief as found in the Award. In any event, the Labour Court granted the relief of backwages even for the period for which the workman never made any grievance of his non-employment and it had failed to take into account that there was a delay of three years in raising the industrial dispute. The further argument was that no document was placed by the workman for proving his illness during the relevant period. The further argument was that no document was placed by the workman for proving his illness during the relevant period. With reference to the standard of proof that is required, it must be noted that the Labour Court is entitled to receive additional evidence in adjudicating non-employment of a workman in evaluating or sifting the evidence. The Labour Court largely governed by the Rules framed by the State Government under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act known as Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. Under Rule 39, the Labour Court can accept any evidence and in any manner, in equity and in good conscience it thinks fit. 11. In the present circumstances, the Labour Court after going through the cross examination of M.W.1 was willing to accept the evidence of the workman that he actually sent leave letter which was evidenced by Certificate of Posting, though not produced before the Labour Court but yet admitted by the Management. The Labour court also chose to reject the stand of the Management that in the absence of their producing inward Tapal Register to show on that relevant date no such letter was received, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution is not inclined to interfere with the said findings recorded by the Labour Court. The Labour Court was also right in stating that the charges cannot be expanded unless the workman was put to notice before the enquiry. The subject matter that he was absent for more than 220 days starting from April 1996 was never a subject matter of the enquiry held against the workman and therefore, this Court is not inclined to take note of the said act rightly rejected by the Labour Court. 12. The only other contention was that whether the Labour Court was justified in granting full back wages even for the period for which the workman never made any grievance about his non-employment. The contention is well founded. As can be seen from the records the workman was dismissed by an order dated 22.09.1998. After sending a Mercy Petition, he did not take any steps to raise a dispute within a reasonable time. The contention is well founded. As can be seen from the records the workman was dismissed by an order dated 22.09.1998. After sending a Mercy Petition, he did not take any steps to raise a dispute within a reasonable time. He only went before the Labour Officer in the year 2001 that is after a period of three years and I do not think the Transport Corporation should be mulct with the liability of paying wages even for the period for which the workman never made any grievance. To that extent the Award of the Labour Court suffers due to non application of mind and liable to be interfered with. 13. Under the said circumstances, the writ petition is partly allowed and the Award of the Labour court is modified to the extent that the workman is eligible for wages from the date of the dispute viz., from January 2001 till he got superannuated from service viz., 31.07.2005 and not for any period before viz., from the date of dismissal till the date of reference. The other relief namely that the workman is eligible to get terminal benefits including pension is also not interfered with. 14. In view of the fact that the Award has been modified, the petitioner Corporation is directed to pay the arrears of wages as directed by this Court within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also to process the pension application and pass appropriate orders within the said period granting the terminal benefits including pension. 15. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. However, parties are allowed to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.