The punishment for misconduct should be based on proved charges and their gravity, and the compensation can be influenced by the employee's long years of service.

D. Murugesan, J.

The writ appeal is filed at the instance of the writ petitioner questioning the order in partly allowing the writ petition. The appellant was appointed and he joined the services of the second respondent-management of M/s Tan India Limited (Wattle Extract Division), Mettupalayam on 28. 74. While he was working as an Operator, a back fire occurred in spray dryer plant on 12. 90 due to the tripping of exhaust motor in the burner of spray dryer plant. In view of the said accident, two feet length of cable wire was damaged. A show cause notice dated 112. 90 was issued calling upon the appellant to explain the cause, as he was in-charge of the spray dryer plant. Though an explanation dated 212. 90 was submitted, not satisfied with the explanation, a charge sheet was issued on 2. 91 and an enquiry was conducted. Subsequently another show cause notice dated 14. 91 was issued on the ground that on 14. 91, during B shift at about 16.00 hours, the appellant operated the spray dryer plant-II without informing the shift electrician resulting in overloading of the generator. The act of the appellant was considered to be a misconduct under Clause 14(2) of the Standing Orders. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued and an enquiry was conducted. In both the enquiries, the charges were held to be proved. Therefore, a second show cause notice dated 28. 91 was issued and the explanation being not satisfactory, the appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 1. 92.

2. The appellant raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.221 of 1992 and the said dispute was adjudicated by the Labour Court, Coimbatore. Before the Labour Court, neither the appellant nor the second respondent-management examined any witness. But the appellant marked two documents, namely, J.C.Sekhars fitness certificate and identity card. On behalf of the second respondent-management, as many as 65 documents were marked. The Labour Court allowed the industrial dispute in part and held that the appellant is not entitled to reinstatement, but is entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards compensation.

3. The said award was questioned by the appellant in W.P.No.12512 of 1995. The second respondent-management also filed W.P.No.15141 of 1995 challenging the very same award of granting compensation. Both the writ petitions were heard by the learned single Judge and by a common order dated 20.6.2002, the learned Judge allowed partly the writ petition filed by the appellant and directed the payment of compensation of Rs.60,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/-as awarded by the Labour Court. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the management was dismissed.

4. The said order is questioned in this writ appeal by the appellant. It is not brought to our notice as to the filing of any appeal by the management.

5. We have carefully considered the respective grievance of the appellant-workman as well as the second respondent-management. The learned Judge had considered elaborately the award as well as the entire enquiry proceedings. In fact the learned Judge had observed that no oral evidence was let in by both the parties and as against the two documents filed by the appellant, the management had filed 65 documents. The finding of the Labour Court that the appellant did not advert to any of the materials placed before the enquiry officer by the management was considered by this Court and, as they being factual finding, have not been interfered. It appears that before the Labour Court, it was primarily contended that inasmuch as the past record of service was not taken into consideration, the quantum of punishment is disproportionate. The learned Judge, while considering the said submission, found that inasmuch as the punishment was imposed based upon the proved misconduct and not based upon past record of service and merely because the second show cause notice did not mention the past record of service by itself would not vitiate the order of dismissal. Holding so, the learned