JUDGMENT 1. This special appeal under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment dated 23.2.2004 of the learned Single Judge whereby the civil writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed as having no merit and the appellant has been directed to reinstate 5 the respondent-workman within 30 days and to make payments due to him within 30 days thereafter as per the order dated 18.4.1998 passed by the Tribunal. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that on 29.8.1991 respondent Vinod Kumar Sharma, the Conductor in the Rajasthan State Road Transport o Corporation (for short the RSRTC') was on duty on RSRTC bus which was going from Mahua to Rajgarh on its regular trip. It was inspected at Nangal Meena and 48 passengers in all were found travelling in the bus out of which passengers who were all going from Mahua to Mandawar were found without tickets from whom the respondent conductor had collected the due fare before the inspection. The respondent was charge-sheeted for this misconduct and after domestic enquiry, the charge was found proved against him. He was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and after considering his written submissions, a penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him vide order dated 10.6.1993. 3. The appellant moved an application under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act'), before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur for approval of the proposed penalty of dismissal from service, but the same was disallowed after hearing the parties. The appellant-Corporation preferred a civil writ petition before this Court which was also disallowed vide impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard at length learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the Tribunal has held that the respondent was made payment of Rs.2159/- on account of full one month pay for the notice period and there was no irregularity in the domestic enquiry which was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in compliance of the relevant standing orders in this behalf. The enquiry was, therefore, fair.The only ground on which the Tribunal declined to approve the order of dismissal of the respondent is that the ticket-less passengers were students who refused to take the tickets,therefore, it being beyond his control, he could not be held guilty for the charge of carrying ticket-less passengers in the bus. The Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in recording the finding that the charge of carrying passengers without tickets was not duly proved against him. The Tribunal has adjudicated the issue as if it was exercising its jurisdiction under section 10 of the Act whereas it was an application under section 33(2)(b) of the Act and it failed to make a difference between the two provisions. The Tribunal can disregard the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer only if the findings are perverse, but the Tribunal has not recorded any such conclusion with regard to the finding of the inquiry. He has then proceeded to assail the conclusions recorded on 45 the basis of the materials on record. According to him, it cannot be disputed that 13 passengers were travelling without tickets at the time of inspection from whom the respondent had collected the fare. The way bill was duly signed without any objection or protest. Even no representation to protest against the remarks recorded in the way bill was made immediately 1 hereafter. The story of the ticket less passengers being students who refused o take full tickets is an afterthought and cooked up story. The fact that he was caught red handed carrying the passengers without issuing them tickets and after charging fare from then (sic them) on four earlier occasions lends s support to the charge and belies his version that the passengers without tickets were students who refused to take the full tickets. He has also submitted that the learned Single judge has also omitted to consider these glaring facts on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Hon'ble 10 Apex Court has taken a consistent view in such matters where the conductors collected fare and failed to issue tickets to the passengers. He has also submitted that the learned Single judge has also omitted to consider these glaring facts on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Hon'ble 10 Apex Court has taken a consistent view in such matters where the conductors collected fare and failed to issue tickets to the passengers. He has placed reliance on the Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma, (Civil Appeal No. 5104 of 2001, decided on 6.8.2001) , Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, ( 2001 (2) SCC 574 ) , Dharamaveer Singh v. RSRTC & Anr., (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 494/2003 decided on 27.11.2003) . Wherein it has been held that the conductor who carries passengers without tickets or issues tickets at a less than the proper rate. he does not deserve any clemency and the sympathy shown to him in such cases would be misplaced. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment as well as the order of the Tribunal. He has submitted that the charge against the respondent was for carrying passengers without tickets whereas the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is that he was carrying 13 passengers without tickets, which fact by itself renders the charge doubtful. He has, therefore, urged that no interference in the impugned judgment is called for or justified. 8. We have also gone through the impugned judgment, the order of the Tribunal dated 18.4 1998. he relevant record and the authorities cited at the bar. 9. Before we proceed further, it would be apposite to extract here Section 30 33(2) of the Act which is as under: 33. Conditions of service. etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings: (1)..................... (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute (or, where there are no such standing order, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman): (a)..................... (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute (or, where there are no such standing order, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman): (a)..................... (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman: Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.' (3)..................... (4)..................... (5)..................... 10. Their Lordships of the Hontle Apex Court in the case of Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Workman, (1961) 1 LLJ 211 (SC) have held that the following points are to be considered by the approving authority while granting approval under section 33(2) of the Act: (i) Whether the action taken by the employer is in accordance with the standing orders; (ii) Whether the inquiry into the matter has been held in accordance with the provisions of the Standing orders; and (iii) Whether all the conditions laid down by the proviso to Section 33(2) are fulfilled. 11. In Central Bank of India v. P.C. Jain, AIR 1969 SC 983 the to Supreme Court has observed, "When an Industrial Tribunal is asked to give its approval to an order of dismissal under section 33(2)(b) of the Act, it can disregard the findings given by the Enquiry Officer only if the findings are perverse. The test of perversity is that findings may not be supported by any legal evidence at all, or where the finding arrived at by the domestic Tribunal is one at which no reasonable person could have arrived on the material before the Tribunal. It was not for the Tribunal to sit in judgment over the view taken by the Enquiry Officer about the value to be attached to the evidence of these witnesses, even though the Tribunal thought that the witnesses were unreliable because of circumstances found by the Tribunal in their evidence 20 when dealing with an application under section 33(2)(b) of the Act." 12. In Strawboard Manufacturing Co. In Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Govind, (1962) 1 LU 420 (SC) it was held that the punishment by way of discharge or dismissal, etc., payment of one month's wages and making of an application by the employer for approval of the action to the appropriate authority must take 25 place simultaneously and be part of the same transaction. In other words, the employer after taking an action immediately or within a reasonable time must pay or offer to pay workman his one month's wages and Should also make an application to the Tribunal for approval of the action. The application for approval may be made even before taking the proposed action, but it should 30 at the latest be made within a reasonable time after the action proposed has been taken. And until the approval is granted by the prescribed authority the order is incomplete and cannot terminate the relationship of the employer and employee. If the approval is granted, it takes effect from the date on which the order as passed by the employer as held in Tata Iron and Steel Co.Ltd. v. S.N. Modak-p, (1965) 2 LLJ 128 (SC) . In case the approval is not granted, the action taken by the employer is wholly invalid and inoperative. 13. In S. Ganpathy & Ors. v. Air India & Anr., (1993) 2 LLJ 731 (SC) , it was held that where an order of discharge or dismissal is passed the de-facto relationship of employer and employee comes to an end but the dejure relationship continues. The dejure relationship ends when the Tribunal accords its approval. 14. In State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh, (1977) Lab IC 845 , the bus conductor of a State Transport undertaking was charge-sheeted for not collecting fares from certain passengers and on his guilt being established there was simple termination of his services because of his long services and young age. In that case the statements of passengers were not recorded by the Inspector of the flying squad. It was held by their lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a domestic inquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply. All so materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. 15. It was held by their lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a domestic inquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply. All so materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. 15. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court have observed as 1 under: "The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence-not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular Court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic Tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the Court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the to evidence of Chaman Lal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground.' 16. Thus, it is apparent from the law laid down in the aforementioned authorities that the Tribunal while deciding an application under section 33(2)(b) of the Act can disregard the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer only if the same are perverse. But, in the instant case the Tribunal has not recorded any conclusion that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is perverse. On the contrary it has clearly held that there was no irregularity in the domestic enquiry. It was fair and was held in accordance with the principles of natural just -;(3 as well as the standing orders. The Tribunal has also found as a fact that the respondent was paid Rs.2159/- as his wages for the entire month. Thus, all the conditions as provided in Section 33(2)(b) proviso of the Act have been found and rightly so to be satisfied. 17. The Tribunal has also found as a fact that the respondent was paid Rs.2159/- as his wages for the entire month. Thus, all the conditions as provided in Section 33(2)(b) proviso of the Act have been found and rightly so to be satisfied. 17. The only ground on which the Tribunal has declined to accord approval to the dismissal of the respondent is that the ticket-less passengers were students who had refused to take the tickets and this being beyond his control he could not be held guilty of carrying ticket-less passengers in the bus But a perusal of the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the 30 instant case reveals that Shambhu Singh has stated before the Enquiry Officer that on 29.8.1991 he was posted in the Central Flying, Jaipur. On that day ne was accompanied by Banshidhar Sharma, O.P. Verma, Dinesh Mudgal and Jai Dutt Mishra. They checked RSRTC bus No. 1804 at Nangal Meena. Vinod Kumar Sharma, the conductor, was on duty on that bus at the time ofchecking. There were 48 passengers travelling in the said bus out of whom were found without tickets who were all travelling from Mahua to Mandawar from whom conductor Vinod Kumar Sharma had collected a total fare A Rs.37.50 @2.50 per passenger before checking of the vehicle. Dinesh Mud.gal prepared their tickets. The Inspection Memo was prepared by O.P. Vern a which is Ex.1 which bears the signatures of the checking staff. He also made a note about the checking of the bus on the way bill Ex.2 which also bears the signatures of the checking staff as well as of the driver and the conductor. He has duly proved his own signatures and the signatures of the members of the checking party on Ex.1 and Ex.2. He has also stated that the ticket s of ticket-less passengers were prepared by Dinesh mudgal. O.P Vern a has also corroborated his statement. 18. Despite searching and thorough cross-examination of these witness, nothing could be elicited from them which may render their testimony unreliable. Vinod Kumar Sharma, the respondent, has himself admitted in his own statement that he was on duty on 29.8.1991 on the RSRTC bus which was going from Mahua to Rajgarh and which was checked by the flying squad. He has admitted that he was served a charge-sheet for carrying 15 passengers without ticket. Vinod Kumar Sharma, the respondent, has himself admitted in his own statement that he was on duty on 29.8.1991 on the RSRTC bus which was going from Mahua to Rajgarh and which was checked by the flying squad. He has admitted that he was served a charge-sheet for carrying 15 passengers without ticket. He has admitted his signature on Ex.1 and Ex.2 and has stated that the driver also put his signatures on the way bill and he deposited the fare of the ticket-less passengers in the Corporation Treasury. He has admitted that he was caught red handed carrying passengers without tickets on five earlier occasions as well. 19. According to him ticket-less passengers were students who had refused to make payment of the due fare and they were travelling on the roof of the bus. But he has not set up any such plea at the time of inspection of the bus by the flying squad. There were only passengers in the bus and the inspection memo as well as the inspection note made on the way bill indicate that they were all travelling in-side the bus and not on the roof. The story of ticket less passengers being students and they were travelling on the roof Is not borne out from the record. if there had been any truth in this plea, he could have very well examined the driver in support thereof or could have made a representation immediately after the checking to the concerned authorities. But he having not done so, this plea does not appear to be believable. If, he had not collected the fare 'from those passengers, he would not have deposited their fare in the Corporation treasury and would have lodged his protest with the flying squad. This apart, if ticket-less passengers were students who had refused to take the tickets, he could have taken the bus to the nearest police station and lodged a report against then in this regard, but he has not done so which also belies his plea and the story appears to be cooked up and an after-thought. 20. This apart, if ticket-less passengers were students who had refused to take the tickets, he could have taken the bus to the nearest police station and lodged a report against then in this regard, but he has not done so which also belies his plea and the story appears to be cooked up and an after-thought. 20. Thus, from the fore-going discussion of evidence on record, it is plain that there is ample evidence on record in support of the charge which was found proved against the respondent and the Tribunal fell into error in recording a finding that there was no evidence on record on the basis of which any prudent person could infer that ticket-less passengers were travelling in the bus. The finding of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer could be disregarded only if the same was found to be perverse. But in the face of the over whelming evidence on record, no such inference could be drawn with regard to the enquiry being perverse. It is not a case where it could be said that there was no evidence on record in support of the charge. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal refusing to grant approval to the dismissal of the respondent as approved by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in law. 21. In Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma, (Civil appeal No. 5104/2001), decided on 6.8.2001) , on a reference being made, the Labour Court invoked its jurisdiction under section 11-A and while upholding the finding that the respondent was guilty of misconduct, it directed the reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service but without back wages. Learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the award which was reversed by the Division Bench. On the matter being taken to the Supreme Court by way of SLP, the Supreme Court relying upon the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, 2001 (2) SCC 574 allowed the appeal and held that the main duty and function of the conductor was to issue tickets and to collect fare and deposit the same with the Road Transport Corporation. When a conductor fails to do so, it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal. 22. When a conductor fails to do so, it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal. 22. In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti , (supra), the Supreme Court held that in such cases where the bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a less rate than the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence ana such conductors were not fit to be retained in service because such inaction or action on the part of the conductors results in financial loss to the Road Transport Corporation. The Supreme Court was firmly of the opinion that in such cases the present orders of dismissal should not be set aside. 23. In Dharamaveer Singh v. RSRTC & Anr. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 494/2003 decided on 27.11.2003 , the charge against the appellant conductor was that though he had realised fare from 29 passengers, he did not issue tickets to them. After departmental enquiry, he was found guilty and his services were terminated. He raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court was of the opinion that the departmental enquiry was not validly held. The Labour Court, therefore, gave an opportunity of hearing to the respondent to establish the said charge against the appellant. The Labour Court on the basis of the material on record came to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant was established even then, it directed reinstatement of the appellant with back wages on the ground that the subsistence allowance was not paid by the respondent. The award was challenged by way of writ petition which was allowed and the award was set aside. When the matter came before a Division Bench of this Court by way of special appeal. the Division Bench relying upon the case of Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma (supra) dismissed the appeal. 24. The facts of the instant case are akin to the facts of the above authorities. So, in view of the law laid down in the afore-mentioned authorities, the order of dismissal cannot be said to be unjustified. 25. the Division Bench relying upon the case of Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma (supra) dismissed the appeal. 24. The facts of the instant case are akin to the facts of the above authorities. So, in view of the law laid down in the afore-mentioned authorities, the order of dismissal cannot be said to be unjustified. 25. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and the orders of the Tribunal dated 18.4.1998 and that of learned Single Judge dated 23.2.2004 are hereby set aside and quashed and the application under section 33(2)(b) of the Act seeking approval to the dismissal of the respondent vide order dated 10.6.1993 is hereby allowed. *******