Judgment Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the first respondent Labour Court relating to the impugned award dated 25.06.2008 in I.D.No.146 of 2002 of the first respondent insofar as denying backwages and other benefits to the petitioner, quash the same and consequently, to direct the second respondent to pay him backwages for the period of his non-employment from 10.08.1998 to 28.02.2003 and other terminal benefits, as if he was reinstated in service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits and award cost. Order: Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The first respondent - S.Vellimuthu and the petitioner - The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Karaikudi, in W.P.(MD) No.8661 of 2010 are hereinafter referred to as Workman and Management respectively. 3. The Workman was appointed as Security Guard in the Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited and he was working as Security in the R.C. Unit, Devakottai Branch. The Management auctioned scrap lots. One Periya Muthamman Steels Corporation, Thanjavur, was the successful bidder in the auction conducted at R.C. Unit, Devakottai Branch. While they were loading the scrap lots, they paid Rs.50/- as a bribe to the Workman. The Workman received Rs.50/- and allowed them to load the scrap lot, which was not auctioned. This incident was witnessed by another Co-guard-S.Arockiyam. He immediately gave a complaint to the Branch Manager of the Management. The Workman assaulted the said S.Arockiyam and threatened to murder him. 4. A charge memo was issued to the Workman. But, he did not submit any explanation. A domestic enquiry was also conducted. The Workman participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer gave a report holding that the charges levelled against the Workman were proved. A second show cause notice, dated 09.06.1998 was issued to the Workman. He submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the Management dismissed the Workman from service. The Workman raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.146 of 2002 before the Labour Court, Madurai. 5. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was let in by the parties and only documents were marked. He submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the Management dismissed the Workman from service. The Workman raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.146 of 2002 before the Labour Court, Madurai. 5. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was let in by the parties and only documents were marked. The Labour Court after considering all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the charges that the Workman received a bribe amount of Rs.50/- was not proved. The Labour Court held that extra materials, which were not auctioned, were loaded by one Periya Muthamman Steels Corporation, Thanjavur and the Workman was negligent in not preventing the same. The Labour Court also took note of the fact that the Workman was acquitted in the Criminal Case filed against him for the very same incident. 6. For the above reasons, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and treated the period from the date of termination to the date of superannuation as ordinary leave and directed the Management to pay Gratuity and other benefits. 7. The Management has filed W.P.(MD) No.8661 of 2010 challenging the award of the Labour Court, dated 25.06.2008, made in I.D.No.146 of 2002, as the Labour Court had set aside the order of dismissal and directed payment of Gratuity and other benefits. 8. The Workman filed W.P.(MD) No.11455 of 2010 challenging a portion of the award, which directed the Management to treat the period as ordinary leave from the date of dismissal to the date of superannuation and denying the backwages. 9. I have perused the materials on record and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the arguments put forth by them. 10. The learned counsel for the Management contended that the Management has proved the charges levelled against the Workman and the Labour Court committed an error in holding that the Management did not prove the charge that the Workman received Rs.50/- as bribe. The Management has examined one S.Arockiyam in the domestic enquiry and proved the charges. He further contended that the standard of proof in a Criminal Case is different from the standard of proof in the domestic enquiry. He also contended that even after acquittal, the Workman can be proceeded with domestic enquiry and punishment can be imposed. 11. The Management has examined one S.Arockiyam in the domestic enquiry and proved the charges. He further contended that the standard of proof in a Criminal Case is different from the standard of proof in the domestic enquiry. He also contended that even after acquittal, the Workman can be proceeded with domestic enquiry and punishment can be imposed. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Workman contended that there is enmity between the Workman and the Co-guard viz., S.Arockiyam. The Management did not examine the Loadman of Periya Muthamman Steels Corporation, Thanjavur or the Assistant Branch Manager of the Management to prove the charges levelled against him. 12. The Labour Court has considered this aspect and gone through the evidence let in before the domestic enquiry and the complaint given by S.Arockiyam. The Labour Court has held that in the complaint given by S.Arockiyam, it has not been stated that the Workman received Rs.50/- from the Loadman. In view of the fact that there is enmity between the Workman and S.Arockiyam, the complainant did not say that he saw the Workman receiving Rs.50/-, the fact that the Workman was acquitted in the Criminal Case, the Labour Court held that the charge of bribe alleged against the Workman was not proved. The Labour Court has given cogent and valid reason for this conclusion. There is no error warranting interference by this Court in respect of this conclusion. The Labour Court has held that extra quantities of scraps were loaded by Periya Muthamman Steels Corporation, Thanjavur. The Workman was negligent in not preventing the same. Therefore, the Labour Court imposed a lesser punishment on the Workman setting aside the order of termination. The Labour Court has imposed a lesser punishment directing the Management to treat the period from the order of termination to the date of superannuation as ordinary leave. The Labour Court has directed the Management to pay Gratuity and other benefits to the Workman. The contention of the learned counsel for the Workman that by treating the period as ordinary leave, the Workman is deprived of from receiving pension. This contention cannot be accepted, as the Workman was not diligent in discharging his duties properly. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the Labour Court is in inconsonance with the misconduct committed by the Workman. The contention of the learned counsel for the Workman that by treating the period as ordinary leave, the Workman is deprived of from receiving pension. This contention cannot be accepted, as the Workman was not diligent in discharging his duties properly. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the Labour Court is in inconsonance with the misconduct committed by the Workman. Therefore, I hold that the impugned award of the Labour Court is valid and as per law and there is no reason to interfere with the same in the writ proceedings. 13. For the reasons stated above, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.