S. MOHAN, J. ( 1 ) IT has been our unfortunate experience whenever the corporation is beset with an adverse award, it immediately comes up by way of writ petition. This may be, because of the might of the corporation. But little does it realise the prejudice caused, sometimes immense prejudice caused, to the workman for two reasons (1) stay is obtained keeping at bay the award; and (2) it takes long number of years for a final adjudication in the matter. Therefore, it would be proper and advisable before the corporation embarks upon such an attempt to question the correctness of the award before this court, to have a detailed examination of the case. In other words, it should not, as a matter of course, come up to this court and invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The case on hand affords a typical illustration for the same. ( 2 ) THE first respondent was a conductor, in the service of the appellant scorporation, who was subjected to the following delinquencies:" (A) he had issued 9 lower dcno. Tickets of Rs. 0-50 fs. Each to 9 passengers who were travelling from vijayapura to chikballapur - stage No. 4 to 1 punching the tickets in advance on stage No. 2 to 1, despite collection of fare of Rs. 1-50 each from the said passengers. He had also not accounted these tickets in the way bill; (b) he had failed to issue tickets to 4 passengers who were travelling from narayanapura to chikaballapur - stage No. 3 to 1 despite collection of requisite fare of Rs. 1/- each; (c) he has failed to issue ticket to a passenger who was travelling from narayanapura to nandi cross-stage No. 3 to 2 and the fare of 0. 50 ps. Was also not collected from him; (d) he had failed to mention the stage Nos. In the conductor's way bill; and (e) he had issued 4 tickets of 0-50 ps. Denomination to 4 passengers who were travelling from narayanapura to nandi cross-stage No. 3 to 2, punching the tickets in advance on stage No. 2 to 1 and also not accounted the tickets in the way bill. "thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted. On the basis of domestic enquiry, he was awarded certain punishment i. e. , stoppage of increment of one stage. "thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted. On the basis of domestic enquiry, he was awarded certain punishment i. e. , stoppage of increment of one stage. That was revised by the revisional authority increasing the punishment to one of dismissal. Thereupon the first respondent raised a dispute which came up for adjudication on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the II additional labour court, Bangalore. It found, for the hearing date 11-5-1982 no notice was served on the workman. Therefore, he being declared ex-pane was wrong and the parties were directed to let in oral evidence. On the basis of the evidence lead before it, it came to the following conclusion:"reference is allowed. Order of dismissal is set aside. II party is directed to reinstate I party to his original post with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. I party is entitled for full back wages. In the circumstances, each party to bear their own costs. "it is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has come to be preferred. ( 3 ) WHEN we put a pointed question to the learned counsel appearing for the corporation, whether it is a fact that the workman was not served with the notice for the hearing fixed on 11-5-1982, he is not in a position to contradict the correctness of this finding of fact recorded by the II additional labour court. However, he would submit that assuming it to be so, nothing prevented the workman from filing an appeal to the appellate authority if he was really aggrieved about the finding. Therefore, the labour court was not right in interfering. Even, otherwise, the labour court had not properly discussed the evidence before it. ( 4 ) WE have given our careful consideration to the above argument. We find from the statement that in the absence of record he is not in a position to contradict, is only an attempt to evade the issue. Nothing prevented the counsel for the corporation to produce the record to the effect that notice had been, in fact, served for the hearing date fixed on 11-5-1982.- ( 5 ) THE question of filing the appeal cannot demerit the case of the workman because it would have been only an appeal from ceaser to ceaser. On that score the jurisdiction of the labour court is not in any manner fettered. On that score the jurisdiction of the labour court is not in any manner fettered. Lastly, we may add that the findings of the labour court are proper. They do not call for any interference whatsoever. We are also of the view that the discretion of the labour court under Section 11-a of the Industrial Disputes Act, has been properly exercised. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/ -. Send a copy of this order to the secretary, ksrtc, Bangalore and to the deputy general manager, ksrtc. --- *** --- .