JUDGMENT 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that interference is not called for in the order dated 19,1.1998 of the learned Single Judge, challenged in this appeal. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed as Conductor in s the respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation on daily wages basis with effect from 11.8.1986. His services were terminated on 12.2.1987. There is no dispute that he had not completed 240 days before his services were brought to an end. Thus, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not attracted in this matter. 3. His services were brought to an end as he was found carrying 28 and half passengers without tickets in the bus of the Corporation. As he was a daily wager, we fail to see any justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the domestic enquiry ought to have been held in the matter. 4. Looking to the nature of the appointment of the appellant, in case a Conductor is found carrying passengers without ticket, there is no need to hold domestic enquiry. If this course is held to have been adopted, it will confer upon the daily wagers rights much more than what even not available to the temporary conductors who have been appointed after selection. In case there is non satisfactory performance of an employee of his category there is no need to give him the work. 5. That apart the appellant had admitted that he started the bus without issuing the tickets. He also admitted in the cross-examination that at the time of checking of the bus, 28 and half passengers were 25 found without ticket. One of the conditions of the appointment of the appellant as daily wager was that he shall not start the bus without issuing tickets. 6. The matter was taken to the Labour Court. There the parties produced the evidence i.e. the affidavits and the cross examination has been 30 permitted of the deponents. Otherwise also the allegation of alleged misconduct has been proved before the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge is correct in his approach not to allow to stand that award of the learned Labour Court. 7. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 8. Otherwise also the allegation of alleged misconduct has been proved before the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge is correct in his approach not to allow to stand that award of the learned Labour Court. 7. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 8. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******