ORDER : R. SURESH KUMAR, J. 1. The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to I.D. No. 467 of 1998 dated 11.02.2002 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same. When the case is called today, Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is ready to get on with the case. However, no one is appearing for the 2nd respondent. Since the Writ Petition is of the year 2002 and has been pending over 15 years before this Court, I am inclined to dispose of this case on merits, based on available records. 2. It is the case of the petitioner/Corporation that the 2nd respondent was appointed as a Conductor at the petitioner Corporation on 01.08.1986. On 03.08.1993, while he was in duty in Route No. VE 540, a sudden inspection was undertaken, where the Team found some discrepancies in issuing tickets and non collection of fare to some luggages. Based on which, charges were framed on 09.08.1993 and served on the 2nd respondent, directing him to give an explanation. During the pendency of the said disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner had been given permission to continue the job by an order dated 09.09.1993. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry and after conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has given a report stating that the first two charges framed against the 2nd respondent have been proved. Pursuant 1:0 the Enquiry Report, a second show cause notice was issued on 11.06.1994, to which, the 2nd respondent sent his reply on 13.07.1994. Since the said explanation of the 2nd respondent was not satisfactory, the Management of the petitioner by order dated 20.01.1995 removed the 2nd respondent from service. As Against the order of removal, the 2nd respondent filed an appeal on 08.03.1995 and the said appeal was rejected against the Management on 27.03.1995. 3. Thereafter, it is claimed by the petitioner that on 09.05.1995, the 2nd respondent had given a request for reappointment and had entered into 18(1) Settlement with the petitioner Management. Pursuant to which, on 18.12.1995, the 2nd respondent was directed to rejoin duty as fresh entrant under daily wages. 3. Thereafter, it is claimed by the petitioner that on 09.05.1995, the 2nd respondent had given a request for reappointment and had entered into 18(1) Settlement with the petitioner Management. Pursuant to which, on 18.12.1995, the 2nd respondent was directed to rejoin duty as fresh entrant under daily wages. The said effort made by the petitioner Corporation was rejected by the respondent and ultimately, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 467 of 1998 before the 1st respondent, who by impugned award dated 11.02.2002, has set aside the order of dismissal from service and directed the petitioner Management to reinstate the 2nd respondent into service with all service benefits, however, restricted only 30% of back wages for the period from the date of dismissal till the date of Award. Aggrieved over the said impugned Award, the petitioner Corporation filed this Writ Petition with the abovesaid prayer. 4. It is the case of the 2nd respondent, as recorded in the impugned Award by the Labour Court that, as against the charge dated 09.08.1993, no proper enquiry was conducted by the petitioner Management, however, the punishment of dismissal from service inflicted against him, against which, he filed an appeal. On 18.12.1995, the 2nd respondent was summoned by the petitioner Management to their office, where they obtained signatures in some papers from the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has sent a letter to the petitioner management. Subsequently, it came to know that the 2nd respondent has resigned his job under 18(1) settlement entered into between the 2nd respondent and the Management and pursuant to the said alleged settlement, a fresh job under daily wages basis would be offered to the 2nd respondent and accordingly, the petitioner/Management passed an order on 18.12.1995. 5. The 2nd respondent did not agree for such order dated 18.12.1995 offering a fresh job on daily wages basis. The 2nd respondent also claimed that he did not enter into any 18(1) Settlement with the Management. 5. The 2nd respondent did not agree for such order dated 18.12.1995 offering a fresh job on daily wages basis. The 2nd respondent also claimed that he did not enter into any 18(1) Settlement with the Management. Therefore, the 2nd respondent raised the industrial dispute before the Labour Court, where, after having considered the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner Management, the Labour Court ultimately found that the charges said to have been proved against the 2nd respondent, had not, in fact, been proved, and based on which, except Charge No. 5, the Labour Court has passed the aforesaid Award against the petitioner Management, against which, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 6. I have heard Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. He would submit that, the findings given in this regard by the Labour Court, in the impugned Award, is not based on the factual matrix of the case. He would further submit that the charges framed against the 2nd respondent were definite charges and in support of each of the charges, documents were filed, however, the Labour Court has given its findings that except Charge No. 5, other charges have not been proved and also for the said Charge No. 5, the punishment awarded by the petitioner Management was disproportionate and by giving these reasons, the Labour Court has passed an Award, directing the petitioner Management to reinstate the 2nd respondent with 30% of back wages. 7. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also invite the attention of this Court the way in which the charges were framed and the enquiry was conducted by giving reasonable opportunities to the 2nd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that after issuing charge memo, an opportunity was given to the 2nd respondent whether he wants to give an oral evidence, based on which the Enquiry Officer was appointed, before whom, the 2nd respondent appeared, where, after giving reasonable opportunities, the Enquiry Officer has concluded the enquiry. After getting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the second show cause notice was also issued for which a reply was given to the 2nd respondent, and further, not satisfied with the reasons given by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner Management proceeded to inflict the punishment of removal from service against the 2nd respondent. After getting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the second show cause notice was also issued for which a reply was given to the 2nd respondent, and further, not satisfied with the reasons given by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner Management proceeded to inflict the punishment of removal from service against the 2nd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel submits that, once the charges were proved against the delinquent, it is the discretion of the Management to inflict either minimum or maximum punishment. 8. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner Management. 9. The Labour Court in its attempt to find out whether the charges framed against the 2nd respondent had been proved reasonably, during the domestic enquiry, has given a detailed findings which are extracted hereunder: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 10. On perusal of the aforesaid findings of the Labour Court, it shows that, the Labour Court has given its anxious consideration in each of the issue raised before it. The Labour Court has also concluded that as per the Standing Order which are in vogue in by the petitioner Management, if the shortage is Rs. 20/-, the same can be permissible. Here in the case in hand, the alleged shortage is only 30 paise. Moreover, it was the further charge framed against the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent has not issued tickets for two luggages. In this regard, the Labour Court found that, the petitioner Management, during the cross examination, had stated that, no action had been taken against the 2nd respondent for the said non issuance of tickets for two luggages. 11. The Labour Court has also given the finding that the shortage of only 30 paise was justified by the 2nd respondent for which the entire calculation has been made at Para 8 of the Award which has already been extracted above. 12. On perusal of the impugned Award, especially, the reasoning given by the Labour Court in its finding to reach the conclusion, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Labour Court, is neither perverse nor lack of support with any materials. 13. Moreover, if at all, the 2nd respondent is guilt of any shortage of amount, which is lesser than Rs. 13. Moreover, if at all, the 2nd respondent is guilt of any shortage of amount, which is lesser than Rs. 20/-, even according to the Standing Orders of the petitioner Management, which is in vogue, no action needs to be taken against such erring employee. Moreover, the theory of 18(1) Settlement and the subsequent action that the 2nd respondent has resigned his job permanently, and he had agreed for a new employment under daily wages basis, had not been accepted by the Labour Court as it was not proved by documents to show the 2nd respondent has agreed for such 18(1) Settlement. Since the 2nd respondent has agitated the issue, and he has made signatures in some papers, after he was summoned to the office of the petitioner, such materials shall not be utilized for any other purpose. He had returned the said document to the petitioner/Management and he could not have presumed that the 2nd respondent would come forward to enter into 18(1) Settlement with the petitioner. 14. Moreover, assuming that the 2nd respondent has entered into 18(1) Settlement with the Management, it cannot be presumed that the 2nd respondent agitated the issue and made signatures in some papers and gave up his permanent job and agreed for reemployment as a fresh entrant on daily wage basis. No prudent man can come without some element of compulsion from the management side, for such arrangement. For the said reason, such a settlement entered into between the management and the 2nd respondent, cannot be accepted that the 2nd respondent has come forward voluntarily to enter into 18(1) Settlement. 15. Here in the case in hand, the action of removal of service taken against the 2nd respondent was questioned by raising an industrial dispute and therefore, the subsequent development whatever taken place, cannot make it redundant. The action of dismissal of service for the charges which had not been proved, was found unjustifiable, as per the finding of the Labour Court and therefore, there is every justification on the part of the Labour Court to come to the conclusion that the dismissal of service was unlawful. Therefore, the findings given and the conclusion reached by the Labour Court, cannot be found fault with. 16. Therefore, the findings given and the conclusion reached by the Labour Court, cannot be found fault with. 16. Moreover, the learned Judge of the Labour Court has consciously taken a view that, 70% of back wages is to be cut off for some extent of guilty of not issuing tickets. For the said guilty, the denial of 70% of back wages has been treated as punishment, which the Labour Court has rightly imposed on the 2nd respondent. For all these reasons, this Court finds that there is no infirmity or illegality or perversity in the findings attached with the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the order impugned is sustainable and accordingly, it requires no interference from this Court. In the result, the following orders are passed in this Writ Petition. (1) The impugned order is sustained and therefore, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (2) Pursuant to the Interim Order passed by this Court dated 11.02.2002 in W.M.P. No. 56290 of 2002 in W.P. No. 37490 of 2002, the petitioner Management deposited a sum of Rs. 68,296.70 as 30% of the wages as allowed by the Labour Court as back wages. (3) Since the 2nd respondent superannuated on 30.06.2008, the question of reinstatement does not arise herein. However, the 2nd respondent shall be entitled to get the benefit of back wages for the period from the date of Award till the date of superannuation. (4) Admittedly, the payment of back wages is pending for all these years, the conditional Stay has been granted to the impugned Award. Therefore, the 2nd respondent shall not be entitled to claim the full back wages/Salary, even for the period from the date of Award/Superannuation. In the interest of Justice, this Court feels that at least 50% of the Wages to be given to the employee to subserve the ends of Justice. Accordingly, this Court directs that the 2nd respondent shall be entitled to get back wages for the period from the date of impugned award i.e., 11.02.2003 till the date of superannuation i.e., 30.06.2008 and also, he is entitled to withdraw 30% of the back wages of Rs. 68,296.70, already deposited before the Labour Court by filing the formal petition. Accordingly, this Court directs that the 2nd respondent shall be entitled to get back wages for the period from the date of impugned award i.e., 11.02.2003 till the date of superannuation i.e., 30.06.2008 and also, he is entitled to withdraw 30% of the back wages of Rs. 68,296.70, already deposited before the Labour Court by filing the formal petition. The petitioner/Corporation shall deposit the said amount of 50% of back wages as indicated above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.