Judgment : The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitioner Pandiyan Roadways Corporation filed this writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, Madurai dated 15-12-1992 in so far as it pertains to the order of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court, though, it had found that the respondent V. Kasi was guilty of having misappropriated the corporations amount. The factual panorama is somewhat like this. Admittedly, the respondent V. Kasi was working in the petitioner Corporation for 16 years. He was working as a Conductor and was operating the bus bearing Regn. No. TCP 4237 on Erode to Devakottai and Madurai route. On 15-2-1989 while the said bus was proceeding towards Madurai, the Checking Inspector was checking the bus on the Devakottai Road and when they got into the bus in which the respondent was the Conductor for the purpose of checking, they found that the respondent was attempting to write the invoice hastily. The said invoice was snatched by the Checking Inspector in which the last entry appeared to be that the respondent had collected money for 3 1/2 tickets for the journey from Devakottai to Madurai. On the passengers being checked, it was found that there were in all 14 1/2 passengers in the bus out of whom only 11 had the tickets and 3 1/2 passengers did not have the necessary tickets. On the said passengers being questioned, one of them, viz., Thirunavukkarasu gave out that they gave Rs. 35/-to the Conductor after boarding the bus at Devokottai towards the fare and the Conductor had given them back Rs. 2.40 having charged Rs. 32.60 for 3.5 tickets from Devakottai to Madurai. The said person insisted that the Conductor had not given any tickets much less 3 1/2 tickets to them and that this is how they were found without tickets. The said statement of the passenger was recorded. The statement of the Driver was also recorded and ultimately a domestic enquiry was ordered against the respondent who was suspended on 23-2-1989.After obtaining his explanation, the domestic enquiry was concluded in which the statement recorded by the Checking Inspector from Thirunavukarasu, the statement of the driver and the statement of the respondent, etc. were relied on. Not only this, the Checking Inspector himself was also examined. were relied on. Not only this, the Checking Inspector himself was also examined. As a result of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the respondent had misappropriated Rs. 32.60 by not giving the tickets to the passengers when he had taken the amount from those passengers towards the fare between Devakottai to Madurai. The said Enquiry Officer also concluded that the respondent had tried to hastily write in the invoice and in that process, he could only write part of the entry and therefore, concluded that the respondent was guilty of the charge framed against him. Thereafter considering the past record of the respondent which showed the previous punishments for the same irregularity, the respondent was ordered to be dismissed from service. The matter was taken to the Labour Court and the Labour Court framed four issues before it, the first issue being regarding the nature of the enquiry. Ultimately, the Labour Court came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence let in before it that the enquiry itself was held coping up with the rules of natural justice since all the opportunities were given to the respondent during enquiry. It has discussed the correctness of the finding of the Enquiry Officer and has put the seal of approval on this finding. The Labour Court seems to have gone into the whole enquiry threadbare, perused all the statements as also perused the evidence let in before the Enquiry Officer by the Checking Inspector and has come to the conclusion that the enquiry was good and that the findings were also justifiable.It was tried to be shown before the Labour Court on behalf of the Conductor/respondent that the findings themselves could not be correct for the simple reason that the passenger who was found to be without ticket was not examined before the Enquiry Officer and what he had said was incorrect. It was tried to be suggested by the respondent that in fact, 3 1/2 passengers had entered the bus not at Devakottai but, in the midst of a place called Amaravathiputhur and there was a dispute between the passenger and himself whether they were liable to pay 3 1/2 tickets or 3 tickets and in that dispute tickets remained to be given. The Labour Court has gone into the merits and demerits and found that the said defence was not worth noting and obviously was false. The Labour Court has found out that the tickets were due to be given at Devakottai only and there was no question of stopping at Amaravathiputhur. The Labour Court has also stated by looking into the evidence threadbare that the contention of the Conductor that there was a dispute between the passenger and himself was itself not justified and that it was clear that the Conductor had failed to issue tickets. It is also significant to note that before the Checking Inspector the Conductor himself in his statement has admitted that 3 1/2 passengers were found without tickets. On the basis of this, the Labour court came to the conclusion that the factual findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were correct and that the enquiry was also conducted in a proper manner by giving proper opportunity to the respondent at all stages. There is also a detailed reference to the notice served on the respondent and the reply which the respondent has given in pursuance of this notice. Lastly, however, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that though the charges were properly framed and proved before the Enquiry Officer, and though, the respondent was guilty of the misconduct for misappropriation of Rs. 32.60 yet, considering the fact that for the last seven years, he had behaved properly and there was no complaint against him, he deserves to be reinstated in service. It was pointed out before the Labour Court that the service record of this employee was black and blue inasmuch as he has suffered suspension and also suffered punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of three months. Labour Court has also noted that the respondent has not denied the fact that he was so punished by the Corporation for his misconduct in the past. The only reason as to why the Labour Court awarded reinstatement appears to be that the petitioner has served the Corporation for 16 years and there was no charge against him for the past seven years. Using this singular consideration, the Labour court has awarded reinstatement granting him the relief under S. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation has seriously challenged this portion of the award. Using this singular consideration, the Labour court has awarded reinstatement granting him the relief under S. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation has seriously challenged this portion of the award. It is significant to note firstly that the finding regarding the guilty has not been challenged by the respondent by filing an independent writ petition. However, learned counsel for the respondent very seriously tried to support the judgment by suggesting that the findings themselves were wrong; it has been wrong on merits. Now, it will not be proper for this Court to go into the merits or demerits of the factual findings at this stage. Even if the factual findings are to be considered, the findings are absolutely correct. The only criticism that was levelled by the learned counsel for the respondent is that though the passengers statement was recorded, in fact, the said passenger could not read and write and that he was not examined and cross-examined at the enquiry. In the first place, it is not necessary for the said passenger to be produced for cross-examination and there is approval of the Supreme Court to this proposition in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, 1982 I(LLJ) 46 : (1977 Lab IC 845) wherein not only was that ticketless passenger was not examined, but his statement was also not recorded. The Apex Court has found that in the domestic enquiry, strict and sophisticated rules of evidence do not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible and that there is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has a reasonable nexus and credibility. In this case, the statement of the conductor/respondent itself suggests that 3 1/2 passengers in the bus were without any tickets. It is also accepted by him that the entry was not complete. The only defence being that there was dispute between him and the passenger and he did not have time to complete the entry. The explanation is obviously incorrect as there was no rush in the bus and there were only 14 1/2 passengers, all of them having boarded at Devakottai. Even the driver of the bus does not subscribe to the view that the bus had stopped at Amaravathyputhur. The explanation is obviously incorrect as there was no rush in the bus and there were only 14 1/2 passengers, all of them having boarded at Devakottai. Even the driver of the bus does not subscribe to the view that the bus had stopped at Amaravathyputhur. Therefore, the defence of the Conductor that he had no time to complete the entry and give the ticket has to fail on its own. Once there is admission statement and once there is clinching evidence of the Checking Inspector who were examined at the enquiry and allowed to be cross-examined supporting the prosecution theory, there is no question of there being any incorrectness about the finding on merit.However, as regards the punishment, the learned counsel for the petitioner very severely opposed the award on the basis if the Supreme Court decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Basudeo Chaudhary. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the fact that this was a similar case where the Conductor failed to give tickets and had tried to misappropriate the amount which in fact, belonged to the transport Corporation. The Supreme Court in paragraph 4 has put a stamp of approval in the following words : "The misconduct that was found established was thus serious in nature and the Labour Court has rightly upheld the punishment of removal from service that was imposed on the petitioner. The High Court was in error in interfering with the award of the Labour Court and in substituting the penalty of censure for removal from service on the view that there was only an attempt to cause loss of Rs. 65/- to the Corporation and the action of the Corporation terminating the services of the petitioner was not justified." Following this judgment, similar view was taken in W.P. No. 7792 of 1993 in which this Court (myself) following the Division bench judgment in Govindarajulu v. K.P.V.S. Mohammed Rowther & Co. (P) Ltd., 1997 (1) LLN 388) wherein the Division Bench had deprecated the action on the part of the Labour Court to reward reinstatement to such an erred conductor. This decision applies on all fours to the present situation. (P) Ltd., 1997 (1) LLN 388) wherein the Division Bench had deprecated the action on the part of the Labour Court to reward reinstatement to such an erred conductor. This decision applies on all fours to the present situation. The Labour Court had to give a finding regarding the quantum of punishment and for that it had to appreciate the nature of the misconduct, its effect, the appending circumstance under which the misconduct has been committed and other allied factors as to whether the misconduct was because of the ordinary human weakness and as to what was the record of service of the person who engaged himself in such misconduct. The award does not show any such comparison having been made. Beyond expressing its firm opinion, on a singular fact that the respondent/conductor had not committed any misconduct for the last seven years and he had put in 16 years of service, the Labour Court had shut its eyes to the earlier misconduct which was of repetitive in nature. The decision in W.P. No. 7792 of 1993 (Pandiyan Roadways Corporation, Madurai rep. by its Managing Director v. The Presiding Officer, Madurai) are almost similar in nature. I do not think therefore, that the Labour Court was right in awarding reinstatement as it did in paragraph 18 of its order. Instead, I am of the firm opinion that the punishment of dismissal was well justified. The award is modified to that extent and the grant of reinstatement is set aside.It is reported that in pursuance of the award, the said Conductor had served after he was reinstated and he is still in the service of the Corporation. If any salary paid to him during that period that shall not be interfered with as he had worked during that period. However, the Court restores the punishment of dismissal which was ordered against him by the concerned authorities by the transport corporation. The petition stands allowed in the light of the above observation. No costs. Consequently, WMPs. 12276 and 27174 of 1993 are dismissed.