ORDER : 1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 30.07.2007 made in I.D.No. 279 of 1996. 2. By the said award, while considering the claim petition filed by the workman, the Labour Court held that the charges against the workmen were proved. However, it found that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate. Therefore, in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, the Court ordered the payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the workman is before the Court. 3. The brief factual background in which the claim petition arises is that the workman was employed as an operator in the respondent company. While so, based on a complaint of abusing a superior in a foul language, the workman was placed under suspension on 12.12.1992. Subsequently, on 27.03.1992, a charge memorandum was issued, alleging misconduct. It is claimed that on 12.02.1992, when the workman failed to report for duty on time and arrived at about 1:15 PM, Mr. Ravichandran, who was in charge of the attendance register directed the workman to contact Mr.Chandran regarding the attendance register. The workman allegedly abused him in foul language and physically assaulted him. Following this charge, a domestic enquiry was conducted and ultimately, an order of dismissal from service was passed on 27.01.1993. The workman raised a dispute. The matter was not resolved in conciliation. Thereafter, the claim petition was taken on file as I.D.No. 279 of 1996. 4. It is the case of the workman that the employees were allowed a grace time of ten minutes to enter the factory and it is only Mr.Ravichandran who wrongly shouted at the workman. He also claimed that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper, as the management did not examine Mr.Varadhan, the Security Guard, as a witness. Therefore, the workman prayed for reinstatement with full backwages and benefits. 5. The management resisted the claim through a counter statement. They reiterated the charge against the workman. It is their contention that the domestic enquiry commenced on 10.09.1992 and due proceedings were conducted and five witnesses were examined and eleven documents were marked. The workman fully participated and availed the opportunity in the enquiry and after appraising the evidence on record, the workman was imposed with the punishment. They reiterated the charge against the workman. It is their contention that the domestic enquiry commenced on 10.09.1992 and due proceedings were conducted and five witnesses were examined and eleven documents were marked. The workman fully participated and availed the opportunity in the enquiry and after appraising the evidence on record, the workman was imposed with the punishment. Since the charge relates to abusing in filthy language and assaulting the superior, the punishment cannot be termed as disproportionate. 6. On the strength of the said pleading, the Labour Court took up the matter for enquiry. In the enquiry, no oral evidence was let in and on behalf of the workman, Ex.W1 to W5 were marked and on behalf of the management Ex.M1 to M20 were marked. The labour Court thereafter considered the issue. The Labour Court considered the fact that as a preliminary issue, it was already decided that the domestic enquiry as against the workman was fair and proper. Thereafter, the Labour Court considered the charges on merits. The Labour Court found that there is evidence on record with reference to the proof of charges. However, the Labour Court considered the totality of the circumstances, nature and background of the workman and considered his previous services from 1973 and in the overall context held that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate and held that interest of justice would be met if appropriate relief of compensation is awarded to the workman. After holding so, it granted a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the workman. Aggrieved by which, the present writ petition is filed. 7. The workman is present. He has made written submissions and also argued orally. He presented some other documents which were in his possession as well. His specific contention is that the relevant witnesses were not at all examined and that he was victimised by the management. He claims that he never indulged in such erroneous behaviour. It is all stage managed by the management and therefore the Labour Court ought to have granted him the entire benefits. The management cannot be allowed to escape responsibility by merely paying a paltry compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Having put in 19 years of service and he contends that he is entitled for all the benefits. 8. It is all stage managed by the management and therefore the Labour Court ought to have granted him the entire benefits. The management cannot be allowed to escape responsibility by merely paying a paltry compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Having put in 19 years of service and he contends that he is entitled for all the benefits. 8. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management would submit that in the domestic enquiry, witnesses were examined and the charges were held to be proved. Even the Labour Court in exercise of its powers under Section 11A held that the charges were proved. In such a scenario, when the charge of abusing a superior in filthy language and assaulting him is stated to be proved, the award of compensation itself was uncalled for. In any event, the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has already been paid by the management. As a matter of fact, when the Court suggested the payment of additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, the same was also made ready by way of demand draft, which the workmen did not accept. He would further submit that the situation has now worsened, as the company is closed and one of the Directors has passed away. Therefore, he prays that since the compensation has already been paid, the matter does not require any further interference by this Court. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. 10. Firstly, it can be seen that a preliminary award has been passed, holding that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and the same has become final and the workman is also not questioning the same. In that background, the first question before this Court is to consider whether the finding of the Labour Court that there is evidence with reference to the proof of charge is correct or not. On a perusal of the records of domestic enquiry, it can be seen that the management had examined the concerned employee who deposed during the enquiry. While, it is true that the security guard could have been an proper and independent witness, the level of proof which is necessary in a domestic enquiry is preponderance of probability. The management examined six witnesses including the affected person and others, to prove the charge. While, it is true that the security guard could have been an proper and independent witness, the level of proof which is necessary in a domestic enquiry is preponderance of probability. The management examined six witnesses including the affected person and others, to prove the charge. Therefore, the mere non examination of the security guard alone will not vitiate the proceedings. When the Labour Court appraised the evidence in detail and concluded that the workman behaved indecently by using filthy language and went to the extent of assaulting the staff, it cannot be deemed a perverse finding that warrants interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, the Labour Court also considered the background of the workman and the long years of service he had rendered. Taking into account the particular behaviour that happened in a surcharged atmosphere on the particular day, the Court held that the dismissal was disproportionate and granted relief to the workman. 11. Considering the nature of the charge, the finding of the Labour Court that compensation, instead of reinstatement with back wages can be ordered cannot be said to be erroneous. This is a fit case where compensation can be granted in lieu of back wages. Therefore, to that extent, the award of the Labour Court is upheld. However, with reference to the quantum of compensation, the Labour Court did not provided any reasoning for how it arrived at sum of Rs.1,00,000/. Therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with. 12. I consider the following circumstances while determining the quantum. The workman has put in 19 years of service. The incident happened in the year 1992 and we are now in 2025. The sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as ordered by the Labour Court, was already paid in the year 2015. The workman is said to be receiving a sum of Rs.4,300/- per month at the time of dismissal from service. Even considering the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in O.P. Bhandari vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited & others, AIR 1987 SC 111 the 39 month salary would amount to approximately Rs.1,70,000/-. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment in Workmen Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner Private Limited and another , 1990 (3) SCC 565 also held that some addition should be made with reference to loss of employment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment in Workmen Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner Private Limited and another , 1990 (3) SCC 565 also held that some addition should be made with reference to loss of employment. The principle on which the 39 month salary was arrived at is that at least half of the last drawn pay, the workman should be in a position to draw by way of monthly interest. Taking all these factors into account, I am of the view that a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- would be an appropriate compensation. The workman has already received sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The balance sum of Rs.2,25,000/- shall be paid to the workman within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of the website uploaded order copy of this Court without waiting for the certified copy. If the amount is not paid within the said period, thereafter, it shall carry further interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 13. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.