JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner Transport Corporation is aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court made in I.D.No.30 of 1999 dated 24.02.2004. Through the said award, the 2nd respondent/workman was directed to be reinstated into service with 50% of back wages. 2. The case of the 2nd respondent/workman before the Labour Court is as follows:- He was working as a Conductor in the respondent corporation from 11.07.1979. He was issued with a charge memorandum on 14.06.1988 alleging that he prepared calendar by using the name of the management and that he was engaged in business of money lending without obtaining the prior permission from the management. The 2nd respondent submitted his explanation denying the charges. Thereafter, another charge memorandum was issued on 08.07.1988 alleging that the 2nd respondent was unauthorisedly absented himself. This time also, the 2nd respondent submitted his explanation stating that he had challenged the order of transfer before the City Civil Court, Chennai and during the pendency of the said suit, he cannot be charged with by saying that he did not report duty at the transferred place. According to the petitioner, the enquiry conducted based on the said charges was not in accordance with law. Further, without accepting the explanations, the management passed an order of dismissal from service. The said punishment was challenged by the 2nd respondent/workman before the Labour Court. On considering the facts and circumstances and also the evidence let in by both parties, the Labour Court passed an award directing the petitioner management to reinstate the 2nd respondent in service with 50% of back wages. Challenging the said award, the management has come with this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and also perused the records carefully. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court having found that the enquiry has been conducted properly ought not to have interfered with the punishment. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that there is no ground to interfere with the award of the Labour Court since there was no evidence let in by the petitioner management in proof of the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that there is no ground to interfere with the award of the Labour Court since there was no evidence let in by the petitioner management in proof of the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied on the decisions of the Apex Court made in L.I.C. of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 3 MLJ 1370 (SC) and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 . 6. As against the 2nd respondent/workman two charge memos were issued, one on 14.06.1988 and the other on 08.07.1988. In so far as the 1st charge memorandum dated 14.06.1988 is concerned, the allegations made against the 2nd respondent herein was that he was running a business of money lending without obtaining prior permission from the management and that he prepared calendar by using the name of the management which conduct was against the rules. 7. Insofar as the above said charges are concerned, the Labour Court has found that the allegations levelled by the management that the 2nd respondent had prepared calendar by using the name of the management had not been proved since the so-called calendar was not marked as exhibit. While considering the other allegation regarding money lending business is concerned, the Labour Court had rejected Ex.M.4 Pamphlet issued with regard to the money lending business, on the reason that there was no indication in the said pamphlet that the 2nd respondent was doing the money lending business. Thus, the Labour Court has found that in the absence of any evidence in respect of the said charges levelled against the 2nd respondent under charge memorandum dated 14.06.1988, the order of punishment imposed against him cannot be sustained. While considering the other charge with regard to unauthorized absence from duty, the Labour Court has found that the 2nd respondent had challenged the order of transfer before the City Civil Court, Chennai, and, therefore, he had not accepted the order of transfer and consequently, he could not be expected to report duty at the transferred place. Thus, by finding so, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that even that charge levelled against the 2nd respondent has not been proved. 8. Thus, by finding so, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that even that charge levelled against the 2nd respondent has not been proved. 8. I find that the findings of the Labour Court, which have been recorded after analysing various aspects of the matter and also on the reason that there was no evidence in respect of the charges, do not require any interference at the hands of this court in this writ petition. As rightly held by the Labour Court, the petitioner management has not proved the charges levelled against the petitioner, both in respect of the alleged money lending business as well as printing of calendar by using the name of the management. Making a mere allegation against the 2nd respondent is not sufficient without proving the same by letting in material evidence. In the absence of any evidence, as rightly held by the Labour Court, charges levelled against the 2nd respondent cannot be held proved. Equally in respect of the other charge memorandum dated 08.07.1988, when the petitioner had challenged the order of transfer before the City Civil Court, Chennai, certainly, it cannot be alleged that he unauthorisedly absented himself from reporting duty. It is needless to state that the 2nd respondent was entitled to challenge the order of transfer. When the order of transfer was challenged, during the pendency of such challenge, a charge cannot be levelled against the 2nd respondent saying that he has unauthorisedly absented himself from duty. Therefore, the said aspect was also rightly considered by the Labour Court in favour of the 2nd respondent/workman and such finding does not require any interference. 9. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in support of his contentions cited decision of the Apex Court reported in L.I.C. of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 3 MLJ 1370 (SC) wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 26 has held as follows:- “26. We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. As has been mentioned herein above, despite perusal of the record, we have not been able to come to know as to under what circumstances respondent plaintiff had admitted those documents. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. As has been mentioned herein above, despite perusal of the record, we have not been able to come to know as to under what circumstances respondent plaintiff had admitted those documents. Even otherwise, his admission of those documents cannot carry the case of the appellants any further and much to the prejudice of the respondent.” 10. In yet another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 , the Apex Court in paragraph 23 has held as follows:- “23. .......... A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.” 11. The labour court by taking into consideration of the fact that the 2nd respondent approached the court after a period of four years, has ordered only 50% of back wages. Since the finding of the labour court is that there was no evidence against the 2nd respondent in support of the charges levelled against him, I find that the order awarding 50% of back wages to the 2nd respondent is also just and reasonable and the same need not be interfered with. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable only to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.