JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner joined the Pallavan Transport Corporation on 28.5.1965, and was suspended from service on 2.3.1977 on the allegation of serious misconduct. 2. The charge memo was issued to the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner used filthy language against security sergeant and tried to assault him on 23.4.1977. 3. The petitioner denied the allegation, therefore domestic enquiry was held. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was not given adequate opportunity in the domestic enquiry and that enquiry was conducted in english though the petitioner did not know english language and knew only Tamil, which resulted in denial of opportunity to raise effective defence. 5. The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 7.6.1977, holding charges to be proved. 6. The petitioner thereafter was served show cause notice and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, an order was passed, dismissing the petitioner from service. 7. The Management sent proposal for dismissal to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, who approved the proposal on 5.11.1977. 8. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute to challenge his dismissal from service. On the failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to State Government, but the Government did not referred to the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. 9. The petitioner therefore, filed W.P.No.5167 of 1982. Writ petition was allowed on 24.4.1987 and direction was issued to the Government to look into the matter afresh in accordance with law. Reference was again declined by the Government. The petitioner therefore, had to file second writ petition No.13839 of 1998, which was again allowed on 17.11.2000 with direction to the Government to refer the Industrial Dispute, to the Labour Court. 10. The learned Labour Court, has passed the impugned award upholding the findings of the enquiry officer by holding that the enquiry was fair and proper, but invoked its jurisdiction under section 11(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, and held that punishment awarded to the petitioner was disproportionate to the proved charges. 11. Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation, a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) was ordered to the paid. 12. 11. Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation, a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) was ordered to the paid. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the finding of the learned Labour Court, that enquiry was fair and proper is totally perverse and is not borne out from the record. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that once it was proved on record that the petitioner was not knowing english language in which enquiry was held, amounted to denial of effective participation in the enquiry thus, enquiry stood vitiated. 14. Learned Labour Courton appreciation of facts on record, did not believe defense of the petitioner, as it was proved that the petitioner voluntarily walked out of enquiry proceedings. Therefore, learned Labour Court therefore, rightly held that no fault can be found with the enquiry officer in conducting enquiry. 15. The learned Labour Court also held that there was sufficient evidence on record to prove charges against the petitioner. Therefore, finding of fact holding the petitioner guilty of the charges cannot be said to be perverse. The charges against the petitioner were serious, of having abused the security Sergeant and attempt to attack him. 16. The learned Labour Court therefore was right in upholding the finding in the enquiry that the petitioner was held guilty of charges. 17. No fault also can be found with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in invoking section 11(A) of Industrial Dispute Act, to interfere with the punishment, as the petitioner had rendered more than 12 years of service on the date of incident. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Singh vs. Executive Engineer, Harayana State Marketing Board, Rohtak (Harayana) (2010(2) SCT 534), has been pleased to lay down that High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution will not interfere with exercise of jurisdiction by Labour Court under section 11-A. On facts and circumstances of the case, except on well settled principles laid down by the Court, and one of it being perversity and the fact whether Workmen obtained some other employment. In this case, admittedly, petitioner could not be reinstated as he crossed the age of superannuation. 19. In this case, admittedly, petitioner could not be reinstated as he crossed the age of superannuation. 19. This Court does not sit in appeal over the award passed by the learned Labour Court, and when there is no perversity in the award of the learned Labour Court, no interference is called for to interfere with the award in exercise of writ jurisdiction. No merit, dismissed. No costs.