JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the award dated 01.07.2011 in I.D.No.409 of 2001 passed by the first respondent in so far as depriving 50% of all benefits from the date of dismissal to the date of death of the petitioners- father and not giving the petitioners full terminal and other benefits including compassionate appointment, quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to pay the petitioners all the remaining 50% benefits and also all the terminal and death benefits including compassionate appointment to the petitioners as if the petitioners- father died while he was in service, award costs.) The relief sought by the petitioners in this writ petition is to call for the records pertaining to the award dated 01.07.2011 passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.409 of 2001 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to pay the petitioners 50% of all benefits i.e., from the date of dismissal to the date of death of the petitioners- father and also, all the terminal and death benefits including compassionate appointment to them as if their father died while he was in service. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case of the petitioners is that their father viz., Mr.A.Kandasamy was working as a conductor in the second respondent corporation since 1981 onwards. During the year 1983, he was working at Pondicherry Depot of the second respondent Corporation and later, he was promoted as Depot President of ATP Union for Pondicherry Depot. On 07.07.1999, when the Bus in Route No.304 came to the Pondicherry Depot for filling diesel, the Branch Manager of Pondicherry Depot had asked one Mr.Natarajan, conductor to step down from the bus and not continue duty in Route No.304. The Branch Manager has deputed another conductor in the place of said Natarajan. 2.1. Due to the said act of the Branch Manager, on 09.07.1999, all other workmen in Puducherry Depot unanimously and spontaneously demanded him to give reason as to why the said Natarajan was denied to continue his duty. In support of said Natarajan, on the very same day, from 8.45 a.m onwards, all other workmen stopped plying the vehicles. While so, the petitioners- father being a Depot President had tried to solve this issue amicably. In support of said Natarajan, on the very same day, from 8.45 a.m onwards, all other workmen stopped plying the vehicles. While so, the petitioners- father being a Depot President had tried to solve this issue amicably. Therefore, he informed the Assistant Manager of the Depot that the workmen were in an agitated mode and they could be pacified, if the Branch Manager has come and explain them about the circumstances. At the same time, the Divisional Manager came to the Depot and told the workmen that the Branch Manager is on leave and the issue could be resolved when he resumes duty after his leave. Having been pacified with the assurance given by the Divisional Manager, the workmen gone back to their duty from 11.00 a.m on the said day. 2.2. The learned counsel further submitted that subsequent to the above incident, a Charge Memo dated 04.08.1999 was issued to the petitioners- father, in which, it was alleged that on 09.07.1999, the petitioners- father Kandasamy had prevented eight buses from being taken on trip in between 8.45 a.m to 11.00 a.m, in support of the injustice caused to said conductor Natarajan. In response to the said Charge Memo, the petitioners- father had submitted an explanation dated 16.09.1999, denying the charges framed against him and also, he had enclosed a letter which was jointly written by the workmen who were all present inside the Depot during the above incident was happened. In the said letter, all the workmen who participated in the agitation had stated that they stopped operating the buses on their own and no one had prevented them from taking the buses on trip. Thereafter, the second respondent corporation ordered for an enquiry and ultimately, vide order dated 08.02.2000 dismissed the petitioners- father from service. Aggrieved over the dismissal, the petitioners- father had filed an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.409 of 2001 before the first respondent Court, but, during the pendency of said I.D.No.409 of 2001, the petitioners- father had died on 15.10.2006. Hence, the petitioners had filed an application to substitute them in the place of their father and the same was allowed. Apart from I.D.No.409 of 2001, against the dismissal order, the petitioners- father Kandasamy has preferred an Appeal before the Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation (Tamil Nadu – Division I) Limited, Chennai, however, the said appeal was rejected vide order dated 18.04.2000. 2.3. Apart from I.D.No.409 of 2001, against the dismissal order, the petitioners- father Kandasamy has preferred an Appeal before the Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation (Tamil Nadu – Division I) Limited, Chennai, however, the said appeal was rejected vide order dated 18.04.2000. 2.3. Before the first respondent Court, on the side of the petitioners, no one was examined as witness and 22 documents were marked as exhibits viz., Ex.W1 to Ex.W22. On the side of the second respondent corporation, one Mr.T.Soundarrajan was examined as witness viz., M.W.1 and 10 documents were marked as exhibits viz., Ex.M1 to M10. On appreciation of the evidence placed before it, the first respondent Court vide its award dated 01.07.2011, set aside the order of dismissal issued to the petitioners- father Kandasamy and directed the second respondent corporation to pay 50% of all the benefits to the petitioners (legal representatives of the deceased Kandasamy) as if their father died while he was in service. 2.4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that after receiving a certified copy of the said award, the petitioners sent a representation as well as legal notice dated 05.11.2011 to the second respondent, requesting to comply with the award passed by the first respondent Court. But the second respondent corporation has not yet complied the direction of the first respondent Court and paid the benefits to the petitioners. Hence, the aggrieved petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court, for the aforesaid relief. 2.5. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the award dated 01.07.2011, particularly, in paragraph No.10 of which, the first respondent Court has held that though several drivers and conductors had participated in the agitation but no action has been taken against them and the action was taken only against the petitioners- father Kandasamy and one Durairaj which shows the discriminatory attitude of the second respondent corporation. 2.6. It is to be noted that there was no previous complaint against the petitioners- father Kandasamy and that apart, no driver of the second respondent corporation had made any complaint that the petitioners- father has prevented them from taking the buses on trip. While so, the allegation of the second respondent corporation that the petitioners- father instigated the agitation cannot be acceptable. While so, the allegation of the second respondent corporation that the petitioners- father instigated the agitation cannot be acceptable. Therefore, the first respondent Court has rightly set aside the dismissal order issued by the second respondent corporation to the petitioners- father. 2.7. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgement, Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors. reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 , wherein, the Hon-ble Apex Court has held as follows: 38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. 38.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while declaring the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors.” 3. In the counter affidavit, the second respondent has stated as follows: (i) On 28.06.1999, while one Mr.Natarajan, conductor attached to the Pondicherry Depot, Employee No.5614 was on duty in Route No.803, he has refused to give balance amount of Rs.22/- to a passenger who travelled from Chennai to Pondy on the pretext that the balance amount was for the luggage. But the passenger had made a complaint before the Branch Manager, Pondicherry to refund the balance amount. Therefore, on 07.07.1999, the Branch Manager had directed the said Natarajan who was on his way from Chennai to Poompuhar to break his duty and refund the amount immediately to the said passenger in person. (ii) As per the direction of Branch Manager, said Natarajan had refunded the balance amount of Rs.22/- to the said passenger and obtained a compromise letter on the same day and thereafter, he was allowed to continue his duty in some other route. (iii) On 09.07.2002, the petitioners- father Kandasamy along with his co-workers had raised objections to the aforesaid action of the Branch Manager, Pondicherry Depot which created labour unrest among the other members and made a demonstration in front of the depot main gate, as a result of which, the operation of eight vehicles at Pondicherry Depot of various routes were affected from 8.45 a.m to 11.30 a.m on that day. By the action of the petitioners- father, the vehicles could not be operated in time which caused much inconvenience to the reserved passengers. (iv) It is clearly stated in the Charge Memo that the petitioners- father claims that he is demonstrating before the depot protest against the action of the Branch Manager, Pondy Depot two days back. (v) The enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer in his findings concluded that the charges levelled against the petitioners- father were proved and on the basis of which, after observing all formalities, Charge Memo was issued to the petitioners- father. The petitioners- father has submitted his explanation for the said Charge Memo and the same was also perused carefully by the corporation, however, his explanation was not convincing. Therefore, he was dismissed from service. (vi) Opportunity was given to the petitioners- father to defend himself. The Enquiry Proceedings was fair and proper and there cannot be a compassionate appointment. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent corporation contended that the second respondent corporation is denying the averments made by the petitioners in their affidavit. He further contended that as a President of the depot, the petitioners- father Kandasamy ought to have solved the issue in a peaceful manner, but, instead of which, he has instigated the other workmen to agitate against the second respondent corporation. Such act of the petitioners- father was considered as a grievous misconduct and therefore, the second respondent corporation has dismissed him from service. But without considering all these aspects, the first respondent Court has directed the second respondent to pay 50% of all the benefits to the petitioners as if their father had died while he was in service. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that this writ petition is not at all maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is not the dispute that several workmen had participated in the agitation on 09.07.1999 inside the Pondicherry Depot. The issue involved in the present case is that out of all those workmen who had participated in the agitation on the said date, why action was taken only against the petitioners- father and one Mr.Durairaj by the second respondent corporation. It is not the dispute that several workmen had participated in the agitation on 09.07.1999 inside the Pondicherry Depot. The issue involved in the present case is that out of all those workmen who had participated in the agitation on the said date, why action was taken only against the petitioners- father and one Mr.Durairaj by the second respondent corporation. The second respondent corporation has issued charge memo to the petitioners- father alone and thereafter, dismissed him from service. Challenging the dismissal order, the petitioners- father had raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.409 of 2001, before the first respondent Court, but, during the pendency of said dispute, he has passed away. The first respondent Court has passed an award in I.D.No.409 of 2001, in favour of the petitioners, however, till date, the said award was not implemented by the second respondent corporation. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent Court has clearly stated that no driver of the second respondent corporation have made a complaint that the petitioners- father has prevented them from taking the buses on trip. Hence, the first respondent Court has rightly held that the charge levelled against the petitioners- father that he instigated other drivers and conductors not to take the buses on trip could not be accepted. Further, it is crystal clear that the action which was taken against the petitioners- father by the second respondent corporation is absolutely discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice. Also, it is a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. If at all, any action ought to have been taken against the workmen who participated in the agitation, the second respondent corporation ought to have taken such action against all the members who participated in the agitation without showing any discrimination. But the second respondent corporation did not do so, it has taken action only against the petitioners- father. So, there is no doubt that this is a clear case of discrimination. 9. But the second respondent corporation did not do so, it has taken action only against the petitioners- father. So, there is no doubt that this is a clear case of discrimination. 9. As far as this case is concerned, the first respondent Court instead of directing the second respondent corporation to pay 50% of all the benefits to the petitioners as if their father had died while he was in service, it ought to have directed the second respondent corporation to pay the entire backwages and all the benefits due to the deceased Kandasamy to the petitioners because the petitioners- father Kandasamy has put in 19 years of unblemish service in the second respondent Corporation. This Court is of the considered view that there is an infirmity in the award dated 01.07.2011 passed by the first respondent Court in I.D.No.409 of 2001 and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors. reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 , the award passed by the first respondent Court in I.D.No.409 of 2001 dated 01.07.2011 is hereby quashed and the second respondent is directed to pay the entire backwages and all the benefits which are due to the deceased Kandasamy to the petitioners (legal representatives of the deceased Kandasamy), as if their father died while he was in service. 11. In the upshot, this writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.