JUDGMENT 1. 1.The appeal is barred by 21 days. On hearing learned counsel for the parties on the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, we consider it appropriate to condone the delay. We order accordingly. 2. Since the question involved in the appeal is a short one, we proceed to dispose of the appeal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The charge against the appellant was that though he had realised fare from 29 passengers, he did not issue tickets to them. A departmental enquiry was held in which he was found guilty and his services were to terminated. The appellant being aggrieved of the departmental action raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court was of the opinion that the departmental enquiry was not validly held. In the circumstances, therefore, it gave an opportunity to the respondent to establish the said charge against the appellant herein. 4. The Labour Court on the basis of the material on record came to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant was established. Even after holding so, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the appellant with back wages on the ground that subsistence allowance was not paid to him by the respondent. 5. The award of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent before the learned Single Judge in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the fact that the subsistence allowance was not paid to the appellant cannot be a ground to order reinstatement of the 1 appellant against whom the charge stood proved. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge set aside the award of the Labour Court and held that the respondent RSRTC is under no obligation either to reinstate the appellant workman or to pay any wages to him. The learned Single Judge, however, gave opportunity to the appellant to claim the subsistence allowance, which was payable to him during the pendency of the proceedings before it. 6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge the appellant has filed the instant appeal. Once the charge against the appellant stood established before the Labour Court, direction to reinstate the to appellant with back wages was not justified. 7. 6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge the appellant has filed the instant appeal. Once the charge against the appellant stood established before the Labour Court, direction to reinstate the to appellant with back wages was not justified. 7. The Supreme Court in Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghanshyam Sharma (Civil Appeal) No. 5104/2001 ) held that u./S. 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has power to interfere with the quantum of punishment but the power has to be examined judiciously. The Supreme Court further held that the main duty and the function of a Conductor is to issue tickets and collect fare and deposit the same with the Road Transport Corporation. and when he fails to do so, then it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the dame is dismissed. APPLICATION NO. 833/10.4.2003Since the appeal has been dismissed, the application for taking the document on record stands dismissed. D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application NO. 2033/2003 Since the appeal has been dismissed, the stay application is also dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******