ORDER : Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, J. The petitioner Corporation challenging the award passed by the second respondent in I.D. No.10 of 2003, dated 30.04.2010, has come out with the present writ petition. 2. The first respondent was a conductor working at the petitioner's Corporation. While so, a charge memo was issued against him on 08.01.2002. Based on which domestic enquiry was conducted and ultimately pursuant to the domestic enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. Challenging the said removal of service, the first respondent raised Industrial Dispute by filing I.D. No.10 of 2003 on the file of the second respondent. 3. By order dated 29.03.2010, a preliminary award was passed, whereby the Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry was conducted properly without violating the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the Labour Court passed final award dated 30.04.2010, which is the order impugned in the writ petition. In the said final award, the Labour Court after having considered the issue raised before it has come to a conclusion that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner pursuant to the domestic enquiry is not based on any proved charges and on mere surmises that the 1st respondent has attempted to misappropriate petitioner Corporation's money by not issuing tickets to four persons on the board, the punishment was given. Therefore, the Labour Court after taking into account the entire evidence and materials placed before it has given its detailed findings through the impugned award and has set aside the order of termination issued on the first respondent dated 06.11.2002 and directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent with continuity of service. The Labour Court cautiously allowed only 50% of back wages to the 1st respondent. 4. Pursuant to the impugned award before getting reinstated, the petitioner got retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.10.2010. Therefore, for the entire period from 06.11.2002, the date on which punishment was awarded on the petitioner, till superannuation i.e. 30.10.2010, the petitioner had been directed to pay 50% back wages and other benefits by calculating the entire service as service period of the first respondent. Challenging the said award, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that initially at the admission stage, stay of impugned award was passed by this Court 04.04.12. Challenging the said award, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that initially at the admission stage, stay of impugned award was passed by this Court 04.04.12. Though the said interim order was limited for three weeks and had not been extended expressly, the first respondent taking advantage of non-extension of interim order by this Court had filed C.P. No.4 of 2011, wherein an order was passed on 25.01.2012 and the entire 50% back wages for the whole period was directed to be paid to the petitioner and therefore that was also deposited by the petitioner and the first respondent has also received the said amount of back wages. Subsequently, the first respondent has also filed C.P.No.35 of 2015 for directing the petitioner to pay the pension benefits, for which the first respondent was entitled to. Accepting the said case of the first respondent, the Labour Court by order dated 18.07.2016, also has allowed the said C.P.No.35 of 2015 by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,02,488/- with 10% interest from 03.12.2015. The said sum was arrived at by the Labour Court by calculating the total compensation at Rs. 3,83,796/-, from which the loan amount obtained by the first respondent had to be deducted, which comes around Rs. 1,81,309/- and therefore, deducting the said amount, the balance of Rs. 2,02,487.60 was directed to be paid to the first respondent. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that pursuant to the order passed in the second C.P., since the amount could not be deposited by the petitioner Corporation, the bus belonging to the petitioner was also directed to be attached and the same has been attached. In this regard, the learned Standing Counsel would rely upon the decision of this Court reported in 2016 (5) CTC 350 in the matter of M. Arumugam v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, wherein the proposition as has been held by this Court is that if the interim order granted in the writ petition is not extended, the parties suffered with the interim order cannot take advantage of non-extension and it was also held in the said judgment that once the interim order was granted by this Court, if the said order was not vacated, modified or varied it is deemed to be in force. Therefore, the first respondent cannot take advantage of the non-extension of the interim order. The learned standing Counsel would rely upon paragraph 5 of the said judgment, which reads thus: "5. Even though the Counter Affidavit states that the impugned Order was passed under the mistaken belief that the Interim Stay was not in force, when the demand of penalty made by the Respondent-Board is the subject matter of W.P. No.30358 of 2012 and when an Interim Order had also been granted by this Court, in the said Writ Petition, staying the payment of penalty imposed, even if the Interim Order had not been extended subsequently, unless the said Order had been vacated, modified or varied, it is deemed to be in force. The Respondent Board cannot take advantage of non-extension of the Interim Order to demand payment of penalty, as a pre-condition, for effecting Domestic Service connections sought by the Petitioner." By quoting the said judgment, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the present writ petition is pending before this Court, where, initially interim stay was granted, since there was no attempt to file any petition for vacating interim order and even though the said interim order was not expressly extended also not vacated, modified or varied, the first respondent should not have taken advantage of the situation where the interim order was not extended by this Court and the said C.P. should not have been filed. At any rate, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the finding of the Labour Court was not based on the evidence adduced before the Labour Court and also the Labour Court while passing the impugned order has not taken into account the back history of the first respondent, where he had involved in such faults and caught. In spite of that, he continue to involve in such violations, which resulted in loss to the petitioner. If this has been considered properly, the Labour Court certainly would not have passed the impugned award. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that absolutely there is no proof to show that the first respondent has involved in such violation as alleged by the petitioner Corporation. If this has been considered properly, the Labour Court certainly would not have passed the impugned award. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that absolutely there is no proof to show that the first respondent has involved in such violation as alleged by the petitioner Corporation. It was the specific case of the first respondent before the domestic enquiry and before the Labour Court that he had issued tickets for all the passengers travelling on the bus on the said date and after having issued tickets, at every stage invoice was properly filled in by the first respondent. Thereafter, four passengers with drunken mood in fact boarded into the bus, they did not take tickets in spite of the repeated requests made by the first respondent. When some wordy altercation went on between the first respondent and the erring four passengers, the next stop came, where the Inspecting Officer boarded into the bus. Immediately they asked passengers to show the tickets taken, where these four persons showed those tickets which were not issued by the first respondent and no way the first respondent was connected with the said tickets. Merely because of the attitude of the four persons, who were in drunken mood, the first respondent had been made scape goat. When the bus reached Tuticorin Depot, the Manager had conducted enquiry on it and left the matter. Thereafter, the charge was unnecessarily framed against the first respondent. Therefore, after considering all these aspects, the Labour Court has given its finding in the impugned order. Therefore, the same need not be interfered with. For no fault of the first respondent, he had been out of service for more than a decade, in spite of the fact that on the part of the first respondent absolutely there was no fault. The Labour Court in fact had allowed only 50% back wages, whereas the first respondent is entitled to full back wages. 8. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 9. In fact this Court has gone through the entire findings given by the Labour Court in the impugned award. In the impugned award, the Labour Court has framed four questions for consideration. 8. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 9. In fact this Court has gone through the entire findings given by the Labour Court in the impugned award. In the impugned award, the Labour Court has framed four questions for consideration. The first one is whether the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with law; secondly whether the punishment of termination inflicted on the 1st respondent was justifiable one; thirdly what relief the first respondent would be entitled to get under Section 11(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and fourthly, what relief the first respondent would be entitled to get from the Labour Court. After having framed four questions, it has been discussed in detail by the Labour Court and the reasonings as well as the findings given by it are cogent in the impugned award. The Labour Court has found that the Branch Manager of Tuticorin Depot was not enquired as witness in the Labour Court. Like that old tickets said to have been obtained from four passengers are not tallying with the serial numbers of the tickets issued by the first respondent, even they are not matching with the previous tickets. Therefore, the very basis of the charges framed by the petitioner has no basis. Ultimately, the Labour Court gave a finding that the first respondent would be entitled to succeed in the Industrial Dispute. Accordingly, he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service. Further, the Labour Court cautiously allowed 50% of back wages because the first respondent has not worked for that period. After having considered all the detailed findings given by the Labour Court, this Court is of the opinion that there is no plausible reason to interfere in the findings given by the Labour Court. In so far as the 50% of the back wages as has been permitted by the Labour Court, the first respondent for no fault of him was out of service for 10 years and normally when reinstatement is ordered by the Labour Court it would be with continuity of service and back wages (full back wages). But in this case the Labour Court allowed only 50% back wages. The first respondent accepted the award and has not filed any writ petition challenging the same. But in this case the Labour Court allowed only 50% back wages. The first respondent accepted the award and has not filed any writ petition challenging the same. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that no need arises in this case for interference by this Court in the impugned award and hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. However, in so far as filing of C.P.s are concerned, no doubt this Court has initially granted interim stay for a period of three weeks. Admittedly, the same has not been extended. That situation seems to have been exploited by the first respondent by filing C.P. after C.P. So far as the first C.P. is concerned, it relates to payment of back wages and second C.P. is concerned it pertains to payment of pension and other benefits. The first respondent having known the fact that the writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned award and the same is pending, where indulgence has been shown by this Court by passing the interim order, he could have waited for the decision to be made by this Court in this Writ Petition, instead he rushed to the labour Court by filing C.Ps. This attitude of the first respondent is deplorable, therefore, it is deprecated. However, since the award passed in the said C.Ps., namely, C.P.No.4 of 2011 and C.P.No.35 of 2015 by the orders of Labour Court dated 25.01.2012 and 18.07.2016 having not been challenged by any separate proceedings by the petitioner Corporation, this Court cannot interfere in the said award in C.Ps. passed by the Labour Court. However, coercive steps have been taken by the first respondent by taking advantage of non-extension of interim order by this Court, which cannot be taken lightly, especially in view of the judgment of this Court referred to above. When an interim order has been passed and the same has not been extended, obviously all the parties to the said writ petition shall abide by the final verdict of the writ petition. Here in this case, without waiting for final decision, since the first respondent has filed C.P. after C.P. and also taken coercive steps to the extent of withholding/attaching the Transport Bus belonging to the petitioner which is a Public Utility Service, such action of the first respondent is to be curtailed. Here in this case, without waiting for final decision, since the first respondent has filed C.P. after C.P. and also taken coercive steps to the extent of withholding/attaching the Transport Bus belonging to the petitioner which is a Public Utility Service, such action of the first respondent is to be curtailed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that pursuant to the present final order passed now in this writ petition, the first respondent is restrained from taking any coercive steps to recover or get back the pension or any other dues from the petitioner Corporation at least for the period of three months, within the period, the petitioner Corporation is expected to settle the amount as awarded by the Labour Court in C.P.No.35 of 2005 dated 18.07.2016. In the meanwhile, the order attaching the bus belonging to the petitioner, issued by the second respondent Labour Court shall stand withdrawn and resultantly the bus concerned shall be released to the petitioner Corporation forthwith. 11. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition is dismissed. 12. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. @Result-W.P. dismissed with observations and directions - No costs -