ORDER : S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Ref. Niru/A5/561/2013 dated 11.09.2013 in and by which, his request for grant of fourth review benefits was declined on the ground that since a charge memo for the allegation of absence from duty for one day was pending, he was imposed a fine to enable him to retire and therefore the 4th review benefits could not be given by putting antedate or earlier date. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows: (i) The petitioner, who joined the services of the 1st respondent Corporation as Conductor with effect from 05.11.1980 became a member of Provident Fund from 01.02.1981 and his service was confirmed on 01.11.1982. He was allowed to retire from service on attainment of superannuation on 28.02.2013. He has submitted that the service condition of the transport workers is governed under periodical settlements arrived under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A settlement dated 22.01.2011 was also entered into between the 2nd respondent management and the representative of the Trade Union, in which Clause 4 of the said settlement deals with grant of review benefits. In other words the service of employees is periodically review and time bound promotion is given. It was further agreed under Clause 4 of the settlement that the existing review benefits of 5% increase in salary between the gap of service period of 6+8+10 years shall be changed and new review benefits between the gap of 6+7+8+8+3 year shall be given. It contemplates for the grant of five reviews to the employees. For every review, 5% increase in salary shall be given upto first three reviews between 6+7+8 years of service and the 4th and 5th review contemplates 3% each increase in salary. It was further mentioned in the said clause that the year of entering into service on temporary basis shall also be taken into account for computation of review benefits instead of taking the date of confirmation of service. Though he was eligible for 4th review benefit with effect from 01.05.2012 as accepted by the Management, the said benefit was not given on the ground that he already retired from service. Though he was eligible for 4th review benefit with effect from 01.05.2012 as accepted by the Management, the said benefit was not given on the ground that he already retired from service. (ii) He has further submitted that while he was in service, a charge memo dated 07.12.2002 was served on him, alleging that there was a checking in the bus in which he worked and it was reported by the Checking Inspector that he failed to issue ticket to one of the two passengers, who traveled together and thereby attempted to misappropriate a sum of Rs. 6/-. Though he denied the said charge, he departmental enquiry was conducted and a punishment of increment cut for a period of one year with cumulative effect was imposed by the 2nd respondent on 31.05.2003 and that the suspension period of 28 days was treated as leave on loss of pay. As against the punishment, he raised an Industrial Dispute through his Trade Union, which was referred to Labour Employment Department of Government of Tamil Nadu on account of failure in conciliation proceedings. By G.O.Ms. No. 85, the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Madurai, which in turn vide Award dated 29.05.2012 modified the punishment of increment cut for one year with cumulative effect into one as increment cut for one year without cumulative effect, as it was held by the Labour Court that he cannot be penalized for twice for the alleged negligence on his part while issuing tickets and the Court also ordered to treat the period of suspension as leave with wages. (iii) It is submitted by the petitioner that a charge memo was issued on him by the 2nd respondent dated 27.03.2012 for participating in the "One Day All India Strike", which was conducted by all Trade Unions throughout the country on 28.02.2012. (iii) It is submitted by the petitioner that a charge memo was issued on him by the 2nd respondent dated 27.03.2012 for participating in the "One Day All India Strike", which was conducted by all Trade Unions throughout the country on 28.02.2012. Since the said Charge Memo was not disposed of by the 2nd respondent even after receiving his explanation, I along with some of the affected workers approached this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 1747 of 2013 seeking a direction to the respondents to complete the disciplinary action, which was disposed of on 31.01.2013 and a direction was issued to conclude the disciplinary enquiry pertaining to the participation in the strike within the period of two months, as a result of which, the 2nd respondent concluded the departmental enquiry pertaining to the charge memo dated 27.03.2012 by imposing a fine of Rs. 200/-. (iv) It is further submitted that if his date of joining as Conductor on temporary basis is taken into account from 05.11.1980, the 4th and 5th review shall be given to him on completion of 29th and 32nd year of his service, as he has put in 32 years of service. But, the said benefit was not extended to him and no reply was received in this regard on his various representations, which forced him to represent under the Right to Information Act on 13.07.2013. Against the said representation, the 2nd respondent passed the order dated 11.09.2013, which is impugned herein. The impugned order is in violation of Clause 4 of the Settlement dated 22.01.2011 arrived under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Though his absence from duty on the said date cannot be construed as a misconduct, the 2nd respondent concluded the department enquiry and imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- vide order dated 23.02.2013 and therefore, it is incumbent on the 2nd respondent to grant 4th review benefits, which would confer him 3% hike in salary with effect from 01.05.2012. The 2nd respondent treated his absence on the said date as "No Work No Pay" and denied the review benefits, which is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The 2nd respondent treated his absence on the said date as "No Work No Pay" and denied the review benefits, which is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (v) It is also submitted that as per the standing order of the 1st respondent, if a workman absented from duty for 8 consecutive working days, then only the same can be treated as misconduct and therefore, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter, wherein it has been stated as under: (i) At the first instance, the 2nd respondent, in the counter, has furnished the definition to Review under Rule 61 of Common Service Rules as under: (a) After completing the prescribed "Length of Service" as given in Col. (6) against each Scale/Level of pay in Col. (4) and (5) in respect of each category in a working Group/Miscellaneous Group. In part C of Appendix-I to those rules, an employee in a Working Group or a Miscellaneous Group shall be entitled to a review of the performance of the employee by the competent authority and for advancement to the next higher scale/level of pay in that Group on the basis of such review. It is contended that the length of service referred to in sub-rule (a) above shall mean periods of service, which counted or counts for increment in Time Scale of pay, but does not include services, which was not counted or which does not count for increment in Time Scale under any rule or order, applicable to the category of post held by an employee at the time of such review. (ii) It is further contended that under Rule 62(a) a Review Committee is constituted, consisting of Manager (Personnel), Unit Officer/Head of the Department and another officer from time to time. (ii) It is further contended that under Rule 62(a) a Review Committee is constituted, consisting of Manager (Personnel), Unit Officer/Head of the Department and another officer from time to time. The review shall be done once in a quarter, namely, 1st day of February, 1st day of May, 1st day of August and 1st day of November of each year for those who have completed the prescribed length of 6 years of qualifying service at the first level (Senior conductor), 7 years of qualifying service at the second level (Selection Grade Conductor), 8 years of qualifying service at the fourth level (Special Grade Conductor-Level No. 2) (as the case may be) in a working group of Miscellaneous Group during the quarter immediate preceding the respective date in each year and the Committee, if it feels that the performance of an employee is not satisfactory, recommend postponement of review in respect of that employee for advancement to the next higher level/scale in the working group or miscellaneous group. (iii) It is stated in the counter that the petitioner, who participated in an illegal strike on 28.02.2012 and was absent from duty, was issued a charge memo dated 27.03.2012, for which, he also submitted his explanation on 03.04.2012. Since the strike was a national issue, the Management referred the matter to the Transport Department of Government of Tamil Nadu for suitable direction in this regard. In the meantime, the petitioner was due for retirement and hence, the management imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- on humanitarian ground. The petitioner cannot claim fourth review benefits for his unsatisfactory performance during his previous length of service after his retirement, as there is no employer and employee relationship between the management and the petitioner as of now. Therefore, it is prayed by the 2nd respondent that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the guidelines to be followed while postponing the review, which reads as follows: By relying on the same, he has submitted that the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions, as he was absent from duty only for one day, that too, on account of All India Strike and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of fourth review. 4. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that on successful completion of service in the particular tenure, an employee in a Working Group or Miscellaneous Group is entitled to be considered for advancement to the next higher scale/level of payment in that group on the basis of review and the employee of such group will not automatically be entitled to such benefit just on completion of years of service without considering his past performance. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record. 6. A circumspection of the fact would reveal that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent Corporation as Conductor and rendered 31 years of service. A charge memo came to be issued again him owing to his participation in the strike on 28.02.2012 and the respondents conducted departmental enquiry and referred the matter to the Government for orders with regard to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Since the petitioner was due to retire from service at that time, the respondents ultimately in a hurried manner imposed a punishment of fine of Rs. 200/-. The respondents justified their stand in the counter by stating that the performance of the petitioner was at all satisfactory, he was not considered in the review for advancement to the next higher scale/level of pay and he was allowed to retire on imposition of Rs. 200/- on humanitarian ground. It is also stated by the respondents that moreover, the benefits for his unsatisfactory performance during his previous length of service after his retirement cannot be considered. 7. However, the statement made by the respondents that there is no employer and employee relationship existing between the management and the petitioner, cannot be correct, as he is entitled to the benefits of review, when he was not informed of performance appraisal and the petitioner was in service on the crucial date. From the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner was not given the benefit, because of his participation in the strike on 28.02.2012 and he was allowed to retire after dropping the enquiry proceedings and imposing a fine of Rs. 200/-. It is pertinent to mention here that after initiation of enquiry proceedings, except forwarding the same to the Government, no further steps were taken to conclude the same in one way or the other ever after a lapse of one year. 8. 200/-. It is pertinent to mention here that after initiation of enquiry proceedings, except forwarding the same to the Government, no further steps were taken to conclude the same in one way or the other ever after a lapse of one year. 8. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Workmen of Tanganagaon Tea Estate Vs. Management of Tanganagaon Tea Estate and Others, (1987) 2 LLJ 491 has observed as follows: "14. It is a fundamental principle of justice that punishment should be commensurate with the guilt. 'Judex acquitatem semper spectare debot: a Judge ought always to have equity before his eyes' .... As regards antecedents, unless the workman was earlier punished after disciplinary enquiry, no inference of guilt could be normally drawn." 9. From the above judgment, it is very clear that the punishment imposed without conducting proper any enquiry cannot be treated as punishment or past record. In this case, the fine has been imposed for the purpose of completing the disciplinary proceedings, which is admittedly not preceded by a full-fledged enquiry and therefore, the act of the respondents is not justified, which deprives the right of the petitioner in denying the benefit that would confer 3% hike in salary with effect from 01.05.2012. In Clause-4 of the settlement dated 22.01.2011, it is stipulated as under: Though the respondents have relied on the Common Rules in support of their denial for non consideration of the claim of the petitioner, the settlement 22.01.2011 clearly states that the period of service from the date of regularization has to be taken into account for extension of review benefits and it is not the case of the respondents that the said settlement is under challenge or a new settlement has come into force modifying the existing clause, detrimental to the petitioner. Since the impugned order proceeds on the basis of departmental action initiated against the petitioner, the alleged charges have not been established in a full-fledged enquiry and therefore, the imposition of fine of Rs. 200/- cannot be treated as punishment so as to deny his review benefits. Hence, the impugned order has no legs to stand and the same is liable to be set aside. 200/- cannot be treated as punishment so as to deny his review benefits. Hence, the impugned order has no legs to stand and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, by directing the respondents to extend the fourth review benefits to the petitioner by awarding 3% hike in his salary from the date on which he is entitled to the same. The said benefits accrued thereon shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the respondents fail to pay the amount within the said period, the petitioner is entitled to 12% interest per annum from the date of writ petition till the amount is realized. No costs.