ORDER : 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 05.06.2003, in I.D. No. 212 of 1999, passed by the second respondent. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The first respondent/employee was working as a driver in the petitioner Corporation at Tiruttani Depot and he was also a member in the Union and also its executive member. The Union had issued a notice to the petitioner Management regarding the proposed strike on 05.06.1993, 15 days in advance. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruttani Police Station had arrested first respondent/employee at 04.30 a.m. on 05.06.1993. The petitioner management issued a suspension order dated 05.06.1993 and 06.06.1993 in order to victimize him. Further, he was issued a charge sheet dated 15.06.1993 and he submitted his explanation dated 27.10.1993 denying the charges and that they are false and vindictive in nature. 2. Not satisfied with the explanation, the petitioner Management had conducted a domestic inquiry. The first respondent had also participated in the inquiry and denied the charges levelled against him by adducing proper evidence and documents. But, the inquiry officer had found him guilty of the charges and gave a finding on 30.01.1996. 3. Based on the inquiry officer's report, the petitioner Management had issued a second show cause notice to the first respondent/employee. Considering the nature of charges, enquiry findings and previous history, the petitioner Management passed a final order dated 03.10.1996 and stopped the increment of the first respondent/employee for three years. 4. Therefore, the first respondent/employee had raised a an industrial dispute u/s 2A(2) of I.D. Act stating that the punishment awarded to him is partial and against the provisions of the standing orders and also against the principles of natural justice. Since the conciliation culminated in failure, the conciliation officer sent a failure report to the Government upon which the Government had referred the dispute to the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. Hence, the first respondent/employee prayed to set aside the order passed by the petitioner management dated 03.10.1996. 5. The petitioner Management filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that they are the State owned Transport Corporation and engaged in the operation of transport services for the convenience of travelling public. The first respondent/employee was employed as a driver attached to Tiruttani Depot. 5. The petitioner Management filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that they are the State owned Transport Corporation and engaged in the operation of transport services for the convenience of travelling public. The first respondent/employee was employed as a driver attached to Tiruttani Depot. On 05.06.1993, the first respondent/employee failed to attend his duty and participated in a protest at Thekkalur with others. Due to the agitation, the Corporation was unable to operate the buses in the permitted routes and the public had suffered much hardship. In order to maintain law and order, the Police arrested the persons, who participated in the agitation including the first respondent/employee. 6. Based on the report, he was suspended from duty and disciplinary action was initiated against him and a charge memo was issued to him, for which he had submitted his explanation and requested the petitioner Management to permit him to resume his duty. 7. Considering his representation, the petitioner Management had revoked the order of suspension without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. In order to provide him an opportunity, a domestic enquiry was ordered. The first respondent/ employee had also participated in the inquiry and the inquiry was conducted in a fair and impartial manner, following the principles of natural justice. The inquiry officer, after carefully going through the material evidences and records, had held that the charges levelled against the first respondent/employee were proved. 8. Based on the findings of the inquiry officer, a second show cause notice was issued to him. But, the explanation offered by him was found to be not satisfactory and unacceptable. Hence, the petitioner Management came to the conclusion to impose a punishment of suspending the annual increment permanently for three years by an order dated 03.10.1996. The punishment was imposed only in accordance with the law, after following the principles of natural justice and there was no victimization. Hence, the petitioner Management had prayed to dismiss the first respondent/employee's case. 9. On considering the averments of both parties, the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, had framed a charge namely: Whether the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years imposed on the first respondent/employee is justified, if not to what relief he is entitled to? 10. Hence, the petitioner Management had prayed to dismiss the first respondent/employee's case. 9. On considering the averments of both parties, the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, had framed a charge namely: Whether the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years imposed on the first respondent/employee is justified, if not to what relief he is entitled to? 10. On the side of the first respondent/employee, he was examined as WW-1 and ten documents were marked as Exs.W1 to W10 namely charge memo, reply submitted by him, Copy of FIR, Police Certificate, Inquiry proceedings, Findings of the inquiry officer, 2nd show cause notice, Final order, Reply filed by him before the conciliation officer and reference made in G.O. (D) No. 205. 11. On the side of the management one witness was examined as MW-1 and 15 documents were marked as Exs.M1 to M15 namely copies of the reports of Murthi driver, Arulraj conductor, Jayabalan driver and Adikesavan driver, remarks of the Assistant Manager, copy of FIR, copy of suspension order, copy of charge sheet, copy of reply to charge sheet, copy of suspension revocation order, copy of enquiry proceedings, copy of enquiry findings, copy of show cause notice, copy of reply to show cause notice, copy of previous history and copy of final order. 12. After considering the evidences of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by them, the learned Principal Labour Judge has set aside the order of punishment dated 03.10.1996 as not justified and directed the petitioner management to pay the amounts legally due to the employee, by order dated 05.06.2003. The operative portion of the order is as follows: 9. At the outset, I would like to mention that the stoppage of 3 years increment by the respondent has nothing but victimisation. The evidence of MW-1 itself is sufficient to show that the petitioner alone was victimise on account of preventive arrested MW-1 in his cross examination has admitted that 13 workers were taken into custody of preventive measure but except the petitioner no action was taken against the rest of the persons namely 12 workers. Why there is a discrimination. This has not been properly explained by the respondent. Why there is a discrimination. This has not been properly explained by the respondent. Since the petitioner's union declared proposed strike and there is no need to arrest as a preventive measure on 5.6.1993 that too at 04.30 a.m. There is no record to show that there was an enquiry held by the respondent in respect of the charge memo issued to the petitioner. Assuming that the petitioner's arrested was a crime, all the persons who have participated in the strike were released on the same day on 5.6.1993. So the stoppage of increment that too only against the petitioner is nothing but victimisation. Therefore, the punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years imposed on the petitioner is not justified and the same is liable to be set aside. 13. Against the said order dated 05.06.2003, the petitioner management has filed the above writ petition. 14. The highly competent counsel appearing for the State Transport Corporation has vehemently argued that the first respondent/employee had not attended his duty and he had participated in the protest agitation at Thekkalur with others and blocked the buses and as such he had been involved in the unlawful activities and dereliction of duty and caused inconvenience to the public, which is against the findings of the Honourable Supreme Court. The petitioner transport corporation is operating buses for the public, which is an essential service especially to down-trodden people. 15. Further, he has submitted that the management verified the entire contents of the first respondent/employee's explanation, on the charge memo and the second show cause notice and scrutinized his previous service history and had passed the final order on 03.10.1996 for stoppage of increment for three years, which is sustainable under law as it is a well considered order, which had been passed on the basis of documentary fact. The punishment is also on the lenient side. 16. The very competent counsel has submitted further that the learned Principal Labour Judge had failed to consider the previous service history of the employee, which had been proved through Ex. M14. The employee's activities were averse and caused hardship to the public as he not attended his duty and blocked the transport buses on the public road. As such the principles of natural justice had not been violated and there is no lacuna in the order passed by the Management. M14. The employee's activities were averse and caused hardship to the public as he not attended his duty and blocked the transport buses on the public road. As such the principles of natural justice had not been violated and there is no lacuna in the order passed by the Management. Hence, the very competent counsel prays the Court to set aside the Order passed by the Labour Court. 17. The highly competent counsel for the first respondent/employee has submitted that the employees Union consisting of 30 workmen were taken into custody as a preventive measure except this employee. Actually all the 30 employees were conducting the agitation for the employees' demands in a democratic way in order to safeguard the welfare of the Transport Corporation employees. 18. The Parental law duly permits the lawful citizens to demand their law rights as per Articles 14, 19 (1) and 21. The employees had issued advance pamphlet to the management regarding their demands. But, the management did not care for the demands of the employees' union members, who are doing hard work by operating buses for the public. The agitation had been conducted within the required norms without disturbing the general public and in a democratic manner. As per FIR, registered by the Police Officer, attached to Tiruttani Police Station, it reveals that there is no untoward incident. Therefore, the management's charge memo, 2nd show cause notice and the findings are not sustainable under law. 19. From the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the first respondent and his Union had circulated pamphlet to the management regarding the proposed strike on 05.06.1993, 15 days in advance. After the receipt of the said notice, the management should have called for a meeting of the union officer bearers and negotiated the demands in an amicable manner in order to maintain a cordial relationship between the management and the union, which is a registered one under the Societies Registration Act and admissible by law and in the said proposed strike 30 workers had participated including preventive measure employees. All the employees' common intention is one and the same and as such since the first respondent/employee had been punished, the order is a prejudicial one to punish a particular person alone. All the employees' common intention is one and the same and as such since the first respondent/employee had been punished, the order is a prejudicial one to punish a particular person alone. As per the police report many persons had participated in the agitation including the first respondent but there is no discussion on issuance of charge memo to the other participants like the first respondent herein, hence the management's disciplinary proceedings initiated, by way of memo against the first respondent is partial by law and discriminate. 20. On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels and on scrutinizing the Order passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai and the above mentioned views, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the impugned order of the Principal Labour Court and this Court is also of the view that there is no compelling force to allow the writ petition. In the result, the above writ petition is dismissed and the order dated 05.06.2003 in I.D. No. 212 of 1999, passed by the second respondent is confirmed. The final order dated 03.10.1996 in Ku. No. 136/1/5551/C6/MGRTC/93 is not fit to be operated upon. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.