Judgment :- K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. The above writ petition is filed for seeking writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Madurai, in his award in I.D. No. 126 of 1991, dated September 17, 1996 and to quash the same. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a public sector transport undertaking belonging to the Government of Tamil Nadu and engaged in the business of passenger transport by bus. The second respondent was employed as a conductor on May 22, 1986, when he was on duty in the bus plying in the route between Devakottai and Madurai at 12.35 p.m. the checking inspector boarded the bus at Manalmettupatti. After obtaining the ticket book from the second respondent, the checking inspector checked the tickets. In such checking, he found that ticket No. 838 has been mentioned in the ticket book as Thiruppathur to Melur, but the fare has not been mentioned legibly. Apart from this, the fare of Rs. 4.80 for ticket No. 838 has not been mentioned in the Invoice. Hence, the checking inspector made enquiries with the passenger and the passenger made a statement that he was travelling from Karaikudi to Melur and he has already paid the fare to the second respondent. Further a passenger gave a statement that he was travelling from Karaikudi to Keelavalavu and that the second respondent had told him that he would collect the fare later. Thus, the second respondent had permitted the passenger to travel without ticket with an intention to misappropriate the fare of Rs. 3.90 which was payable by the passenger to the Corporation. The checking inspector conducted a detailed report to the petitioner-management on May 29, 1986 and since the misconduct reported against the second respondent was grave and serious in nature, the second respondent was suspended with effect from June 19, 1986. A detailed chargememo, dated June 25, 1986 was issued calling upon the second respondent to submit his explanation. On July 3, 1986 he has submitted his explanation. But the explanation was found to be not satisfactory, the management decided to conduct a domestic enquiry. The management conducted a domestic enquiry after giving a full and fair opportunity to the second respondent. On July 3, 1986 he has submitted his explanation. But the explanation was found to be not satisfactory, the management decided to conduct a domestic enquiry. The management conducted a domestic enquiry after giving a full and fair opportunity to the second respondent. After the receipt of the enquiry report and on an independent analysis of the entire proceedings of the enquiry officer, the petitioner came to a conclusion that the charge had been proved and accordingly, the second show-cause notice was issued to the second respondent on May 11, 1987, show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. After considering the reply to the show-cause notice, the second respondent was dismissed from service by an order, dated July 1, 1987 with immediate effect. The second respondent has challenged the said order of dismissal by way of an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 126 of 1991 on he file of the Labour Court, Madurai. The Labour Court after taking into consideration of the materials placed before it, had come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the second respondent had not been proved, however, held that once the management has lost faith on the employees, instead of directing the management to reinstate the second respondent, he will be compensated by payment of wages under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Invoking such a power, the Labour Court has directed the management to pay a sum of Rs. 1, 40, 000 to the second respondent. This award of the Labour Court is now challenged in the present writ petition.Notice of motion was ordered on August 20, 1997. In this case, notice has been served on the second respondent in whose favour the Labour Court has passed an award. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the second respondent. Smt. Narmadha Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the award of the Labour Court is unsustainable, because, the Labour Court having found that the domestic enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law ought to have given an opportunity to the management to let in evidence to support the case of the management. The refusal of the same would vitiate the award of the Labour Court and as such the award impugned in this writ petition is liable to be set aside. The refusal of the same would vitiate the award of the Labour Court and as such the award impugned in this writ petition is liable to be set aside. Even on merits, she contended further that when the statement of one of the checking inspectors, one Thiraviyam, who had inspected the bus is very much available, the reasoning given by the Labour Court to set aside the order of dismissal that the management has not chosen to examine the other checking inspectors is not sustainable in law. With these two grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the award passed by the Labour Court. Now let me consider the sustainability of the impugned award with reference to the contentions raised by Smt. Narmadha Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioner. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the Labour Court having found that the enquiry conducted by the management is not in accordance with law, it ought to have allowed to let in evidence before the Labour Court and failure to do the same would vitiate the proceedings. The Labour Court in its award at Para 7 has given a finding that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner herein is not in accordance with law. Further in Para 8 of the award, the Labour Court has held that though it is possible to give an opportunity to the management to adduce evidence in the event of finding that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law, in the absence of any such request by the management, no fresh opportunity need be given. In order to give support to this stand the Labour Court relied on the decision reported in J. B. Sanjeeva Rao v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court 1995 (1) LLN 231. This stand taken by the Labour Court is unsustainable, because the facts are otherwise. In the counter statement filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court, the petitioner specifically pleaded that in any event if the Labour Court held on the preliminary issue against the petitioner herein, then they be provided with further opportunity to lead additional evidence on the basis of the dispute. In the counter statement filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court, the petitioner specifically pleaded that in any event if the Labour Court held on the preliminary issue against the petitioner herein, then they be provided with further opportunity to lead additional evidence on the basis of the dispute. In view of the unambiguous and clean pleading made by the petitioner herein, the Lower Court totally misdirected in coming to the conclusion that no opportunity need be given to the petitioner and reliance of the judgment is also misdirected. In view of the above facts the first contention of the counsel for the petitioner must be held as well founded and the reasoning otherwise given by the Labour Court is unsustainable.In support of the second contention with regard to the non-examination of the other passengers and other two checking inspectors, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the decision reported in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh 1982-I-LLJ-46 wherein the Supreme Court has held that at p. 47 of LLJ : "4. In a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible." And the Supreme Court has further held that merely because the statement of the other passengers were not recorded, the order that followed was invalid. In this case also the reasoning of the Labour Court to set aside the order passed in the enquiry is as follows : Vernacular matter omitted The above reasonings run counter to the decision of the Supreme Court, stated supra. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the award passed in I.D. No. 126 of 1991, dated September 17, 1996, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court to consider the matter afresh. No costs. Consequently, no order is necessary in W.M.P. No. 20386 of 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court, the management has deposited a sum of Rs. 1, 57, 721 on October 8, 1997 to the credit of I.D. No. 126 of 1991. Since the award has been set aside, it is open to the petitioner to withdraw the same with appropriate application.