Judgment :- 1. The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited, has approached this Court to quash the award, passed by the learned Labour Court, Cuddalore, ordering payment of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) to the legal heirs of the deceased respondent. 2. The facts are not disputed. Thiru Rajendran was working as Driver with the petitioner Management since 20.05.1988. The deceased workman was issued charge memo on 29.12.1995 under the Service Rules for absence from duty. An enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted the enquiry, wherein principles of natural justice were complied with. The Management was allowed to prove the charges by producing relevant documents, showing that the deceased respondent was absent from duty. 3. The respondent / workman was also allowed to lead evidence and in support of his absence, the workman produced on record the medical evidence showing that he was under medical treatment during the particular period, therefore, his absence was neither wilfull nor intentional. 4. The enquiry officer found the workman guilty of charges and the competent authority accepting the enquiry report, ordered dismissal of the petitioner. 5. The respondent / workman did not take any action for 5 years and 9 months, thereafter, raised industrial dispute to challenge the dismissal from service. 6. During the pendency of reference before the learned Labour Court, the workman died, and his legal representatives were brought on record to contest the case. 7. Learned Labour Courtrecorded a positive finding that the enquiry was fair and proper. However, learned Labour Court did not agree with the finding of the enquiry officer qua wilful absence. 8. Learned Labour Court, on appreciation of evidence recorded, a positive finding that the absence of the workman was not wilful or intentional, but on account of medical reasons. 9. It was on account of the positive finding based on appreciation of evidence, that learned Labour Court held the dismissal to be not sustainable in law. 10. 8. Learned Labour Court, on appreciation of evidence recorded, a positive finding that the absence of the workman was not wilful or intentional, but on account of medical reasons. 9. It was on account of the positive finding based on appreciation of evidence, that learned Labour Court held the dismissal to be not sustainable in law. 10. However, keeping in view the fact that the reference was made after lapse of five and half years and also that the workman had died during pendency of reference, learned Labour Court calculated the last wage drawn for the period for which the workman would have served and came to the conclusion that payment of Rs.3,60,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only), would be just and equitable compensation, in lieu of reinstatement and backwages, as the workman was dead. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that once it was not disputed that the reference was made after lapse of 5 years and 9 months, the petition ought to have been dismissed being belated. 12. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, as no limitation is prescribed in raising reference. The delay in reference can be the ground for the Labour Court to reject or accept the reference or and take factor of delay into consideration while granting backwages. 13. Once the Labour Court entertained the reference, this Court, cannot set aside the award merely on the ground that the reference was belated. 14. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that keeping in view the fact that there was delay in raising reference, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in KSRTC vs. Iasuvaraj and another, 2000 LLBR 1025, legal representatives of the workman should have been granted 50% of backwages on the last drawn wage. The grant of compensation of Rs.3,60,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only), therefore, is contrary to the settled law regarding payment of backwages etc. 15. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, though looks attractive on the face of it, when seen in depth, has no legs to stand. The grant of compensation of Rs.3,60,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only), therefore, is contrary to the settled law regarding payment of backwages etc. 15. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, though looks attractive on the face of it, when seen in depth, has no legs to stand. If the wages from the date of termination till his death are calculated at 50% of the salary, which workman would have drawn and if he was allowed to continue his service, he would have been entitled to revision of wages from 1997 till 2007, which will be more than the one assessed by the learned Labour Court. 16. Therefore, the order granting compensation of Rs.3,60,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) cannot be said to be perverse, which may call for the interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. No merits. Dismissed. 18. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.