ORDER : C. Saravanan, J. 1. Both these writ petitions are directed against the impugned order dated 30.5.2012 passed by the Labour Court. 2. W.P. (MD) No. 5725 of 2013 has been filed by the management of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited insofar as the order directs reinstatement of the employee with payment of back wages to the employee, for the period after 15.2.2011. 3. In W.P. (MD) No. 11720 of 2014, the employee has challenged the said order of the Labour Court, denying the benefit of continuity of service and attendant benefits to him for the period commencing from the year 2000 up to 15.2.2011 being the date of institution of the proceeding before it. 4. The employee was issued with the charge memo dated 31.5.2003 for the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 3 while issuing tickets to the passengers. In the charge memo, it was alleged that the employee a conductor of the bus run by the State Transport Corporation had not issued a ticket to a passenger by after collecting the ticket charges and thereby, misappropriated the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3. 5. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and found the employee guilty of the charges. In the enquiry proceeding, the employee wanted to cross-examine the passenger whose statement obtained by the jeep driver at the time of ticket checking squad. However, the management was unable to get the witness for cross-examination. The statement also did not bear the signature of the passenger. Based on the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, the employee was dismissed from service by the management of the State Transport corporation. 6. An application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was filed in Approval Petition No. 368 of 2003 by the management before the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation). The said officer accorded approval to the decision of the management dismissing the employee, by an order dated 15.2.2005. 7. The said order was challenged in W.P. No. 20900 of 2006. In the said petition, notice was ordered. As the writ petition was not disposed, the employee was advised to raise an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 18 of 2011 before the Labour Court, Madurai. Under these circumstances, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.6.2013. 8. 7. The said order was challenged in W.P. No. 20900 of 2006. In the said petition, notice was ordered. As the writ petition was not disposed, the employee was advised to raise an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 18 of 2011 before the Labour Court, Madurai. Under these circumstances, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.6.2013. 8. The Labour Court in the impugned order has found the petitioner guilty of negligence and therefore, held that punishment awarded dismissing the employee from service was disproportionate and therefore, directed the management to reinstate the employee. However, while ordering reinstatement, the Labour Court has not allowed back wages and attendant benefits to the employee from 2004 to 15.2.2011 on account of the delay in raising the industrial dispute before the labour Court. Instead of the management filed W.P (MD). No. 5725 of 2013, while the employee filed W.P. (MD) No. 11720 of 2014 before this Court. 9. The Labour Court has rightly concluded that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges namely misappropriation of Rs. 3 and the punishment awarded was disproportionate. Indeed, the punishment awarded is shocking the conscience of the Court as the management had failed to prove the charges. 10. Therefore, I am of the view that the writ petition filed by the management in W.P (MD) No. 5725 of 2013 is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the issue that survives for consideration is whether the Labour Court was justified in denying benefit of continuity of service during the period between 2004 to 16.02.2011. The employee has challenged the order of the Joint Commissioner of Labour before the Principal Bench of this court in W.P. No. 20900 of 2006. Therefore, the delay in approaching the Labour Court cannot come and the legitimate way of the employee getting the benefit as the said Writ Petition against the order dated 18.2.2005 of the Joint Commissioner of Labour was filed on 28.6.2006 and the same was admitted on 4.7.2006 and notice was ordered on the respondents. If at all, the employee would have been disentitled to the benefit during the period when no proceeding was pending at his behest. Therefore, the period after the passing and receipt of order of the Joint Commissioner of Labour and filing of the aforesaid writ petition before the Principal Bench at best can be excluded for the purpose of determination of attendant benefits. Therefore, the period after the passing and receipt of order of the Joint Commissioner of Labour and filing of the aforesaid writ petition before the Principal Bench at best can be excluded for the purpose of determination of attendant benefits. 11. Thus, the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the employee is upheld while the order of the Labour Court excluding the period between 2004 to 15.02.2011 for the purpose of determination of benefit of continuity of service, wages and attendant benefit is liable to be interfered. Accordingly, the employee will be entitled to continuity of service for the purpose of determination of terminal benefits as he has retired pending disposal of the writ petition and is not guilty of alleged misconduct. 12. The period during which the employee was suffering from dismissal shall be treated as a period of suspension. For the aforesaid period, the Management of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Limited, shall pay to the employee the arrears of subsistence allowance together with notional benefits to the employee as if the employee was in service but under suspension. 13. This amount shall be calculated and paid along with interest at 7.5% per annum. The arrears of subsistence allowance shall be paid separately by treating the period during which the employee was under dismissal from service as a period of suspension excluding the amounts already paid. 14. The terminal benefits shall be paid to the employee together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the employee attaining age of superannuation by treating the entire period till the employee was reinstated to service as having been in service. The employee shall not be entitled to arrears of salary during the period of dismissal which has been treated as a period of suspension. Unless the rules governing the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Limited allows for payment of during the period of suspension if an employee is reinstated back to service. 15. The Management of the Tamil nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited shall pay the amount to the employee, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court in the above writ petitions. 16. In the result, W.P. (MD) No. 5725 of 2013 is dismissed. W.P (MD) No. 11720 of 2014 is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.