JUDGMENT : (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH, J.) The Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15210 of 2005. 2. When the punishment of dismissal was challenged by the 2nd respondent before the Cuddalore Labour Court, an Award dated 13.05.2003 came to be passed by holding that the domestic enquiry was not held in a fair and proper manner. The Labour Court also held that the charges levelled against the employee were not proved. However, while ordering reinstatement, the Labour Court has restricted the back wages to 50%. 2.1 This award came to be challenged by the Transport Corporation in W.P.No.15210 of 2005. The Learned Single Judge, had taken note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the workman that they are willing to give up 25% of the back wages out of the 50% awarded by the Labour Court and accordingly, restricted the back wages to 25% while confirming the Award. This order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The Learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant / Transport Corporation would submit that the charges against the employee are very serious in nature and therefore, the Corporation has awarded a proportionate punishment. He would also submit that all due opportunities were extended to the workman during the course of enquiry and the principles of natural justice were also followed during the course of enquiry. Thus, he would submit that the Award of the Labour Court requires interference. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the objections raised by the appellant has also already been considered by the Labour Court and only then, the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. He would further submit that this preliminary order was not challenged by the appellant and therefore, they are estopped from challenging the final order. He would also submit the Labour Court has held the charges as not proved and hence, no interference is required to both the Award of the Labour Court, as well as the order of the Learned Single Judge. 5. It is not in dispute that, when the Labour Court had passed the Award restricting the back wages to 50%, the appellant has not chosen to challenge the award before this Court. 5. It is not in dispute that, when the Labour Court had passed the Award restricting the back wages to 50%, the appellant has not chosen to challenge the award before this Court. In the final award, the Labour Court, on perusal of the materials on record, has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the employee has not been proved. While that being so, in normal circumstances, the workman would be entitled for payment of full back wages, together with other benefits. 6. We find from the records that, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has made a fair offer by giving up of 25% of the back wages, out of the 50% awarded by the Labour Court. In consideration of such submission, the Learned Single Judge has restricted the back wages to 25%. In this background, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Learned Single Judge. 7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the workman has attained the age of superannuation and his DCRG benefits are yet to be disbursed. He would further submit that the employee joined the service on 10.02.1987 and was terminated from service on 24.04.1990. However, in view of the Award of the Labour Court, which includes continuity of service, the employee would be qualified for receiving the pension. 8. In the light of the above facts, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.