Judgment : V.Dhanapalan,J.- 1. Heard Mr.S.S.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / petitioner Transport Corporation and Mr.C.Manohar, learned counsel for the second respondent. 2. The writ appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25334 of 2009 dated 05.08.2011, in and by which, the learned Single Judge has confirmed the order of the learned Labour Court passed in I.D.No.565 of 2002 dated 23.04.2009, by permitting the 2nd respondent herein to withdraw the amount lying in deposit with the Labour Court and make request for refund of the balance amount, with further time bound direction to the appellant / petitioner to implement the award. 3. The petitioner / appellant had filed a writ petition, seeking to quash the award passed by the 1st respondent herein vide order dated 23.04.2009 in I.D.No.565 of 2002. 4. The case of the appellant / petitioner in the writ petition is as follows: 4a. The 2nd respondent was employed as a Conductor and attached to Kalpakkam Depot. On 28.9.2000, he was listed for duty in bus route No.188 B/A. He was charged that he had corrected some tickets by altering the fares, thereby misappropriated Rs.148/- and kept a shortage of Rs.52/-. The bus was not checked by any surprise squad. Subsequently, the Audit Department found the discrepancies in the trip sheet and arrived at the said conclusion. On the basis of the audit report dated 5.10.2000, a charge memo dated 24.11.2000 was given to the petitioner. The petitioner gave an explanation dated 6.12.2000. The substance of the workman's explanation was that he had lost 3 fingers and for the first time he had gone to the rural route and he has to write in the tickets and while travelling, there was some difficulty in making entries and that led to overwriting and he has not committed any such misconduct of misappropriation by altering the ticket fares. 4b. Notwithstanding the explanation, an enquiry was conducted by an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer by a report dated 16.2.2011 found irregularity of the charges. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 3.4.2001 was issued to the workman and finally by an order dated 8.5.2001, he was dismissed from service. Though the workman filed an appeal, no appeallate order was passed by the appellate authority. 4c. Thereafter he raised a dispute before the Government Labour Officer. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 3.4.2001 was issued to the workman and finally by an order dated 8.5.2001, he was dismissed from service. Though the workman filed an appeal, no appeallate order was passed by the appellate authority. 4c. Thereafter he raised a dispute before the Government Labour Officer. On the strength of the failure report given by the said Officer, the petitioner filed a claim statement before the 1st respondent Labour Court. The said dispute was taken on file as I.D.No.565 of 2002 and notice was ordered to the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner Corporation filed a counter statement dated 30.1.2003. 4d. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workman, he had examined himself as W.W.1 and marked 8 documents as Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.8. On the side of the petitioner management, one D.Duraisamy Naidu was examined as M.W.1 and 10 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to M.10. 4e. The Labour Court on the basis of the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that the departmental witness in the domestic enquiry had given contradictory answers. It also found that the workman had lost 3 fingers on his left hand. Therefore, there was difficulty for him to hold the ticket bundle on that hand and his explanation was that overwriting was due to physical deformity, was not considered by the enquiry officer. The further fact that for the first time he was listed in the rural route was not considered. With reference to the past conduct, the court did not accept the contention of the workman and the same was not considered. On the question of misconduct, the Labour Court held that there was no deliberate attempt to misappropriate any amount and the action was not intended to cause any loss to the Corporation and he was also physically deformed and he was listed for the particular route only on that day. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the Labour Court held that dismissal of the workman was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. In that view of the matter, it directed reinstatement of the workman with 50% backwages. 5. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the Labour Court held that dismissal of the workman was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. In that view of the matter, it directed reinstatement of the workman with 50% backwages. 5. The Labour Court, on examination of witnesses and perusal of material documents, directed the appellant Transport Corporation to reinstate the 2nd respondent herein into service with continuity of service, 50% back wages and other attendant benefits, as against which Award, the appellant Transport Corporation had preferred an appeal before the Writ Court. Learned Single Judge, after due consideration of the entire facts and case of the parties, has come to the following conclusion: 5. In the present case, on the basis of the materials placed before it, the Labour Court's finding cannot be said to be either perverse or disregarding the norms for judicial review. The Labour Court has power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to interfere with the penalty even in a case of charges being proved. Inasmuch as the Labour Court had exercised its discretion, this court is unable to interfere with the said finding under the power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. 6. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, it is open to the 2nd respondent to withdraw the amount lying in deposit with the Labour Court and make request for refund of the balance amount. The petitioner Corporation shall implement the award within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Aggrieved over the order of the Writ Court, confirming the award passed by the Labour Court, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant Transport Corporation. 6. The petitioner Corporation shall implement the award within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Aggrieved over the order of the Writ Court, confirming the award passed by the Labour Court, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant Transport Corporation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation has advanced his arguments, by contending that learned Single Judge had failed to note that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and principles of natural justice was also duly followed and in the absence of malafide in conducting the domestic enquiry, there is absolutely no justification with the award of the Labour Court, that learned Single Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the question of considering the past conduct would arise only if present misconduct was proved, that learned Single Judge also erred in concurring with the findings of the Labour Court that there was no deliberate attempt to misappropriate any amount and finally failed to note that the 2nd respondent had vast experience of more than 10 years as Conductor and he had not given any representation expressing difficulty on duty in mufussil routes. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant Corporation prays for setting aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondents has submitted that a perusal of enquiry proceedings would reveal that in the domestic enquiry, the author of audit report was only examined as Management witness. He has further contended that learned Single Judge is right in considering that past record is not necessary, when the misconduct was not proved and therefore, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of writ appeal. 8. We have considered the rival submissions on the above background pleadings and also perused the material documents available on record. 9. It is seen from the documents that the 2nd respondent was employed as a Conductor and on 28.09.2000, it was alleged against him that he had corrected some tickets by altering the fares, thereby misappropriated Rs.148/- and kept a shortage of Rs.52/-. On the basis of audit report dated 05.10.2000, a charge memo came to be issued against him and after show cause notice and due enquiry, he was dismissed from service. On the basis of audit report dated 05.10.2000, a charge memo came to be issued against him and after show cause notice and due enquiry, he was dismissed from service. The action of the appellant Transport Corporation was challenged by the 2nd respondent before the Labour Court, which, on the question of misconduct, held that there was no deliberate attempt to misappropriate any amount, that the action was not intended to cause any loss to the Corporation and that he was also physically deformed and therefore directed reinstatement of the workman with 50% backwages. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the appellant / petitioner Transport Corporation was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge, thereby confirming the award passed by the Labour Court. 10. A careful analysis of the order in question shows that learned Single Judge is right in holding that in absence of perversity, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the award of the Labour Court, as the Labour Court has power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to interfere with the penalty even in a case of charges being proved. Therefore, learned Single Judge, keeping with the above position, has passed the order, confirming the award passed by the Labour Court, which , in our considered opinion, does not warrant any interference by this Court and thus, the writ appeal deserves merits consideration. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.