Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, J.

The petitioner Corporation challenging the award passed by the second respondent in I.D. No.10 of 2003, dated 30.04.2010, has come out with the present writ petition.

2. The first respondent was a conductor working at the petitioner's Corporation. While so, a charge memo was issued against him on 08.01.2002. Based on which domestic enquiry was conducted and ultimately pursuant to the domestic enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. Challenging the said removal of service, the first respondent raised Industrial Dispute by filing I.D. No.10 of 2003 on the file of the second respondent.

3. By order dated 29.03.2010, a preliminary award was passed, whereby the Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry was conducted properly without violating the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the Labour Court passed final award dated 30.04.2010, which is the order impugned in the writ petition. In the said final award, the Labour Court after having considered the issue raised before it has come to a conclusion that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner pursuant to the domestic enquiry is not based on any proved charges and on mere surmises that the 1st respondent has attempted to misappropriate petitioner Corporation's money by not issuing tickets to four persons on the board, the punishment was given. Therefore, the Labour Court after taking into account the entire evidence and materials placed before it has given its detailed findings through the impugned award and has set aside the order of termination issued on the first respondent dated 06.11.2002 and directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent with continuity of service. The Labour Court cautiously allowed only 50% of back wages to the 1st respondent.

4. Pursuant to the impugned award before getting reinstated, the petitioner got retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.10.2010. Therefore, for the entire period from 06.11.2002, the date on which punishment was awarded on the petitioner, till superannuation i.e. 30.10.2010, the petitioner had been directed to pay 50% back wages and other benefits by calculating the entire service as service period of the first respondent. Challenging the said award, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that initially at the admission stage, stay of impugned award was passed by this Court 04.04.12. Though the said interim order was limited for three weeks and had not been extended expressly, the first respondent taking advantage of non-extension of interim order by this Court had filed C.P. No.4 of 2011, wherein an order was passed on 25.01.2012 and the entire 50% back wages for the whole period was directed to be paid to the petitioner and therefore that was also deposited by the petitioner and the first respondent has also received the said amount of back wages. Subsequently, the first respondent has also filed C.P.No.35 of 2015 for directing the petitioner to pay the pension benefits, for which the first respondent was entitled to. Accepting the said case of the first respondent, the Labour Court by order dated 18.07.2016, also has allowed the said C.P.No.35 of 2015 by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,02,488/- with 10% interest from 03.12.2015. The said sum was arrived at by the Labour Court by calculating the total compensation at Rs. 3,83,796/-, from which the loan amount obtained by the first respondent had to be deducted, which comes around Rs. 1,81,309/- and therefore, deducting the said amount, the balance of Rs. 2,02,487.60 was directed to be paid to the first respondent.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that pursuant to the order passed in the second C.P., since the amount could not be deposited by the petitioner Corporation, the bus belonging to the petitioner was also directed to be attached and the same has been attached. In this regard, the learned S