JUDGMENT : Uday Sinha, J. - These two applications have been heard together as one of the points urged on behalf of the petitioner, the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation is common to them. They will be governed by this common JUDGMENT :. 2. Both the applications arise out of ORDER :s passed under section 33A or the Industrial Disputes Act. The contesting respondents in both the applications ware conductors employed with the petitioner. It appears that by notification dated 3.1.1976, the State of Bihar had made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, on the following question for adjudication: "Whether 20% allowance will be admissible or not to those conductors of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation who perform the work of Time Keeper ?" While this reference was pending the contesting respondents got involved in two separate departmental proceedings relating to dereliction of duty by them while working as conductors. On the basis of charges framed against them, they were dismissed from service. Thereafter the respondents filed application before the Tribunal for taking action against the management in terms of section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The applications of the conductors were registered as Misc. Case Nos. 11 and 13 of 1976. C.W.J.C. No. 3290 of 1979 arises out of Misc. Case No. 11 of 1976 and C.W.J.C. No. 1553 of 1979 arises out of Misc. Case No. 13 of 1976. Notices of the miscellaneous cases having been issued, the management appeared and contested the maintainability of the applications. Objection of the management was that the respondents of these applications were not workers concerned in the dispute pending for adjudication in Reference Case No. 3 of 1976. According to the management, these respondents were not concerned workmen in ORDER :to attract the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to act in terms of section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. This question was taken up as a preliminary issue. After hearing the parties, the then Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna, rejected the objection of the management and held that the complaints (respondents) fell within the ambit of "workmen concerned" in respect of Reference No. 3 of 1976. The petitioner moved this Court for quashing the ORDER :of the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the preliminary point but the application was permitted to be withdrawn observing that it would be open to the management to agitate this point after the final award. The petitioner moved this Court for quashing the ORDER :of the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the preliminary point but the application was permitted to be withdrawn observing that it would be open to the management to agitate this point after the final award. The ORDER :of Tribunal rejecting the preliminary objection is Annexure 2 to this application. When the application under section 33A of the Act was heard on merit, the Tribunal rejected the findings and conclusion of the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal, therefore, embarked upon independent consideration of the charges levelled against the respondents. The Tribunal held that the charges levelled against the respondents had not been established. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire award was vitiated as the respondents were not workers concerned in the dispute pending before the Industrial Tribunal. Section 33A provides that if an employee contravenes the provisions of section 33 during the pendency of a proceeding before a Labour Tribunal, any employee aggrieved by such contravention may make a complaint in writing to the Tribunal which shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it was a dispute referred to or pending before it. Section 33 lays down that during the pendency of any conciliation proceeding or during the pendency of any proceeding before a Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall work in a particular manner. It is well settled that in ORDER :to attract the rigour of sections 33 and 33A the workmen complainant of contravention of section 33, must be a workman concerned in the dispute pending before the Tribunal. This position was rightly not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, but it was contended that the dispute related to Time Keepers and not to conductors and as the respondents were only conductors at the time of the dispute and at the time the punishment was imposed they were not workmen concerned in the dispute. Therefore, section 33 of the Act had no application. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I have not the least doubt that the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of substance. I have set out earlier the matter in controversy in Reference No. 3 of 1976 which was pending adjudication at the time the respondents were dismissed from service. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I have not the least doubt that the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of substance. I have set out earlier the matter in controversy in Reference No. 3 of 1976 which was pending adjudication at the time the respondents were dismissed from service. The question in the reference was whether such of the conductors who worked as time keepers were entitled to 20% allowance. The stand and the evidence of the respondents is that they had worked off and on as time keepers. This stand was contested by the management on the footing that any such working as time keeper was a private arrangement and no conductor could work as time keeper without the ORDER :of the proper authority. The evidence of the management, however, shows, following cross-examination of the management witnesses, that ORDER :s were given to conductors to work as time keeper. On the basis the Tribunal held that the respondents had worked as time keepers from time to time. Having worked as time keeper toe question whether they were entitled to 20% allowance or not concerned them as well. Whether the ORDER :to act as such was oral or in writing, if a conductor worked as time keeper, he will be entitled to it. Judged from this angle, the respondents had interest in the matter in controversy in Reference No. 3 of 1976. 5. Apart from that, even if it were to be held that the respondents had never worked as time keepers, yet these conductors could work as time keepers from time to time. At any future point of time, the respondents may be called upon to act as time keepers. The reference, therefore, was on a question of principle. That principle affected or touched every conductor and, therefore, every conductor in the employment of the petitioner was concerned in the matter under consideration in the reference. In that view of the matter, it is idle to contend that as the respondents had not worked as time keeper they had no interest in the matter in controversy. I am, therefore, firmly of the view that the respondents fell within the scope of "workmen concerned" in the dispute. The submission urged on behalf of the petitioner, thus, in regard to the maintainability of the applications under section 33A are without substance and must be rejected. I am, therefore, firmly of the view that the respondents fell within the scope of "workmen concerned" in the dispute. The submission urged on behalf of the petitioner, thus, in regard to the maintainability of the applications under section 33A are without substance and must be rejected. 6. Having disposed of the common question of law against the petitioners I must now come to the specific question of validity and propriety of the dismissal of the respective workman. C.W.J.C. No. 3290 of 1979 7. In regard to the domestic enquiry the Labour Tribunal then presided over by Shri Anwar Ahmad held that the enquiry was not properly held and the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse. The Tribunal, therefore, gave further opportunity to the management to prove its case on merit. Learned counsel submitted that the conclusion of the Tribunal on merit was unwarranted, nay perverse. In ORDER :to judge whether the findings were perverse or not we must not forget that in this supervisory writ jurisdiction this Court is not called upon to review and reweigh the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal (see T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and another : A.I.R. 1954 Supreme Court 440). With that limitation upon us let us see whether the finding of the Tribunal is legal or not. 8. The charge against respondent Md. Husnain was that on 29.7.1975 while he was conducting bus no. BRB 4628, Gaya-Tata service, it was checked by Traffic Inspector and it was found that he was carrying 17 unbooked passengers out of 34 passengers. The second allegation against him was that he had realised fare from 8 of the unbooked passengers but had not granted the tickets in token thereof. On the second charge in regard to misappropriation of fare for 8 passengers, the Tribunal held that this charge was absolutely unsustainable. In regard to the other, relying upon various circumstances and after scrutinising the oral evidence adduced by the Corporation, the Tribunal held that the evidence of management was not worthy of reliance. The Tribunal found material contradictions in the evidence of the management witnesses. Upon those considerations the Tribunal found as a fact that the allegations levelled against the respondents had not been established. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 9 of the unbooked passengers in the bus had been tried and convicted by a Special Magistrate's court. The Tribunal found material contradictions in the evidence of the management witnesses. Upon those considerations the Tribunal found as a fact that the allegations levelled against the respondents had not been established. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 9 of the unbooked passengers in the bus had been tried and convicted by a Special Magistrate's court. The conviction of such of those persons was conclusive proof of the charge against the respondents that he was carrying some unbooked passengers. The submission appears to be attractive in, the first view. A deeper probe, however, reveals its hollowness. 9. The stand of the workman was that at Raidih the booking counter was closed due to rain. Some passengers, therefore, got into the bus without tickets. The conductor stated that the bus would proceed only after tickets had been issued to all of them. On that, the case of the respondent was, that some of the passengers started shouting saying that there was a lady sick passenger and the departure of the bus should not be delayed as that was likely to endanger her life. In those circumstances the bus was given the green signal. Hardly the bus had gone 3 to 4 kilometers when the checking party stopped the bus and naturally found some unbooked passengers, The workman contended that in that state of affairs the finding of unbooked passengers do not show his delinquency and did dot amount to misconduct. The Tribunal accepted this case of respondent. I am unable to find any flaw in the reasoning for accepting the case of the workman. I have examined the entire award as also the other materials and I am satisfied that the approach and the conclusion of the Tribunal are well founded. Even if another view of the evidence could have been taken, it is not for this Court hearing a writ application reappraise and reweigh the evidence. Submission urged on behalf of the petitioner only amounts to reweighing or having fresh look on the evidence. I regret this cannot be done. The conclusion of the Tribunal must be held to be concluded by finding of fact in this regard. The award in favour of Md. Hasnain in C.W.J.C. No. 3290 of 1979 cannot, therefore, be interfered with. C.W.J.C. No. 1553 of 1979 10. Respondent no. 2 in this application was also working as conductor at the relevant point of time. The conclusion of the Tribunal must be held to be concluded by finding of fact in this regard. The award in favour of Md. Hasnain in C.W.J.C. No. 3290 of 1979 cannot, therefore, be interfered with. C.W.J.C. No. 1553 of 1979 10. Respondent no. 2 in this application was also working as conductor at the relevant point of time. The charge against this respondent also was that he had misappropriated the amount of fares realised from passengers. Basis of misappropriation was that the amounts mentioned ort the carbon copy of the ticket was lesser than that mentioned on the original pencil copy of the ticket. The workman called upon the management to produce both the copies of the tickets issued by the workman. They were not produced. The management stated that they were not available. Both the copies not having been produced the conclusion was irresistible that the management has failed to establish that the conductor had made different entries in the pencil copy and carbon copy of the tickets. As an extension of the same position, it was difficult to hold that the workman had misappropriated any sum of the management. The Tribunal categorically held in paragraph 8 of the award as follows:- "According to me the opposite party has failed to establish the charge of defalcation of Rs. 27/- against the complainant. Therefore, the ORDER :contained in Ext. F cannot be sustained." With respect, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal was the only finding which could have been arrived at. Where the charges are for making different entries in different papers it is elementary that both the documents must be produced before the court of facts. That not having been done, the petitioner had himself to thank. In that view of the matter, the finding regarding failure of the management to establish its case was a forgone conclusion. The finding cannot be assailed on any ground. 11. For the reasons, stated above, I find no merit in any of these writ applications. They are dismissed accordingly. Since both the work mea have, been ORDER :ed to be reinstated with full back wages, I do not consider it expedient to award costs. 12. S. B. Sanyal J. - I agree with the reasons and conclusions of my lord Uday Sinha, J., just now, delivered. They are dismissed accordingly. Since both the work mea have, been ORDER :ed to be reinstated with full back wages, I do not consider it expedient to award costs. 12. S. B. Sanyal J. - I agree with the reasons and conclusions of my lord Uday Sinha, J., just now, delivered. I would, however, like to add few words of my own with respect to the preliminary objection. 13. The application arises out of a complaint under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act for violation of the provisions of section 33 (2) (b) of the Act. From a perusal of the reference which appears in the main JUDGMENT : it is manifest that it relates to the entitlement of an allowance for all conductors who may be asked to perform the work of time keeper. Therefore, the reference relates to the entitlement of that allowance to such conductors who may have already performed the work of time keeper, conductors who may be working as time keeper and conductors who may be asked in future to do so. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jawad Anwar is that the respondent no. 2 having not performed the work of time keeper be is not a concerned person in the Reference No. 3 of 1976 which would permit him to file a complaint under section 33 A of the Act. Assuming the contention of Mr. Jawad Anwar that the respondent no. 2 never performed the work of time keeper to be correct, even then he would be a concerned person in the reference as it relates to the entitlement of special allowance for the conductors who, as stated earlier, may even be asked to perform the function of time keeper. Learned counsel during the course of argument admitted that conductors may be called upon to do the work of time keeper and if that be so, I do not find any reason as to why the conductors in general will not be concerned person in the said reference. The reference, in my opinion, is an adjudication with respect to wage of conductors. It is inexplicable that all conductors working in the establishment of the petitioner will be concerned person in that reference.