ORDER R.A. Sharma, J. - Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as workman) was conductor in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as petitioner). He was charge-sheeted on the ground that in 41984 the bus of which he was the conductor, was checked by the officials of the petitioner and it was found that 71 out of 93 passengers were travelling without tickets, although he has realised fare from them. Domestic enquiry is said to have been held by the petitioner against the workman and ultimately he was dismissed from service by order dated 31-3-1986. At the instance of the workman Government, in exercise of powers under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, referred the matter to the Labour Court to decide the dispute pertaining to removal from service of the workman. The Labour Court by its Award dated 31-8-1989, has declared removal from service of the workman, as illegal and has directed for his reinstatement with full back wages. It is against this Award that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. The Labour Court by impugned Award has declared Domestic enquiry as improper and illegal but had permitted the parties to produce evidence on merits. Both the parties had accordingly adduced evidence before the Labour Court on merit of the dispute. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and the writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with Rules of the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the award on the ground that the Labour Court was not justified in setting aside the order of removal from service of the workman on the ground that the passengers, who were travelling in the bus and Sri R.K. Singraur, checking officer were not produced in evidence. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a case of State of Haryana v. Ratan Singh. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1512 : (1917 Lab I C 845) and a Division Bench judgment of this court in Writ Petition No. 9102 of 1980, Sri Krishna Sharma v. A.R.M. decided by this Court on 26-2-1988, copy of which has been filed as Annexure I to the writ petition. 4. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1512 : (1917 Lab I C 845) and a Division Bench judgment of this court in Writ Petition No. 9102 of 1980, Sri Krishna Sharma v. A.R.M. decided by this Court on 26-2-1988, copy of which has been filed as Annexure I to the writ petition. 4. The Labour Court has examined the whole question in details and has declared removal of service of the workman as illegal for more than one reasons. The Labour Court by the impugned Award has inter alia held that (i) the checking report on the basis of which the workman has been charged and removed from service lacks relevant particulars i.e. the amount of money charged from passengers by the workman place from which passengers, without ticket, were travelling and when report says that the passengers decliend to state anything how could checking officers know that they have made the payment of fare to the workman; (ii) Mr. Singraur, who was the main officer who conducted the checking along with two other officials and who has written report against the workman, was not produced before the Labour Court and two other officials of the petitioner, who were also present at the time of checking, were produced but their evidence was not reliable; (iii) the testimony of the witnesses of the petitioner including two officials was not reliable for various reasons. which have been discussed in the Award: (iv) the passengers who were travelling in the bus, which was checked by officials were not produced and (v) the petitioner has not been able to prove that the workman was guilty of misconduct for which he was charged. 5. As is clear from perusal of the Award the other two officials who were also present at the time of checking could not reply effectively to many querries put to them when they appeared before the Labour Court as witnesses. In these circumstances there is nothing wrong if Labour Court has drawn adverse inference from the fact of non production of Sri Singraur, who was the main officer who conducted the checking in the bus and submitted report against the workman. In these circumstances there is nothing wrong if Labour Court has drawn adverse inference from the fact of non production of Sri Singraur, who was the main officer who conducted the checking in the bus and submitted report against the workman. Apart from what has been mentioned above various aspects of the matter have been considered and after taking into account the evidence produced on behalf of both the parties and facts and circumstances of the case the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that removal from service of the workman was unjustified and illegal. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ratan Singh (supra) has declared that merely because statement of passengers were not recorded the order of removal from service cannot be said to be invalid. To the same effect is the decision of this court in the case of Shri Krishna Sharma (supra). It is true that non-production of passengers in evidence is one of the several reasons given in the Award by Labour Court for holding the removal from service as bad and to that extent the Award of Labour Court can be said to be wrong. But it was not only ground on which removal from service of the workman has been declared invalid. The Award of the Labour Court runs into about 25 pages and several reasons/grounds have been given in support of the finding to the effect that termination of service of the workman was unjustified and illegal. In this connection Labour Court has considered various aspects of the case, including the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. When an order is based both on good and bad reasons it cannot be declared as invalid. if it could be supported by good and relevant reasons. Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Bidya Bhusan. AIR 1963 Supreme Court 779 has declared that : If the High Court is satisfied that if some but not all of the findings of the Tribunal were "unassailable". the order of the Governor on whose powers by the rules no restriction in determining the appropriate punishment are placed. AIR 1963 Supreme Court 779 has declared that : If the High Court is satisfied that if some but not all of the findings of the Tribunal were "unassailable". the order of the Governor on whose powers by the rules no restriction in determining the appropriate punishment are placed. was final, and the High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Governor to review the penalty for as we have already observed the order of dismissal passed by a competent authority on a public servant if the conditions of the Constitutional protection have been complied with, is not justiciable. Therefore, if the order may be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed, it is not for the court to consider whether that around alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant." Similar view were expressed by Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Chandra Mohan AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2411: (1977 Lab IC 1923) when it held that : "Even in the case of an order of dismissal by way of punishment, if there are several grounds on which the order is founded and one or two of those fail and the order can still rest on the surviving ground or grounds disclosing a prima facie case of guilt or misconduct the same cannot be held to be invalid by applying the subjective test of preventive detention." To the same effect is the law declared by Supreme Court in Swarn Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 232. 8. It is thus clear that even if the Award is based on mixed consideration some of which are not sustainable in law, it cannot be questioned by this Court as long as it can be sustained on other reasons and grounds given by Labour Court in support of the Award. As mentioned hereinbefore several reasons and grounds have been given by Labour Court for declaring the removal from service of the workman as illegal and each one of these reasons are sufficient to support the Award and in my opinion it is not a case where this Court can interfere with such an Award under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without cost.