MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Pleadings are complete. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for hearing. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition challenges the Order dated 8th October, 2002, passed in O. P. No. 107 of 1992 by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal ) in an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the id Act ) by the petitioner/dtc seeking approval of the action for the removal of the respondent from service. ( 3 ) THE charge related to non-issue of tickets to the passenger after collecting the tendered fare. The order finds against DTC and refuses permission for approval on the failure of the petitioner/dtc to produce before the Tribunal, the passengers, who paid the fare but were not issued tickets. The non-production of passengers is not a ground for setting aside the order of removal against the conductor, i. e. , the respondent herein as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the State of Haryana Vs Rattan Singh reported as (1977) 2 SCC 491 and by this court in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs N. L. Kakkar and Another 110 (2004) DLT 493. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY the order dated 8th October, 2002 passed by the Industrial tribunal-II, Delhi cannot be sustained as it runs contrary to the well settled position of law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court and a learned Single Judge of this court. Consequently the order dated 8th October, 2002 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the P. O. , Industrial Tribunal-II, Delhi for disposal in accordance with law to decide the issue without relying on the issue of non-examination of passengers. Normally costs should not be awarded to a party who has lost in the writ petition, i. e. , is the respondent/workman herein. Normally costs should not be awarded to a party who has lost in the writ petition, i. e. , is the respondent/workman herein. However, it has been noticed time and again by this Court in almost every case where passengers who paid but were not issued tickets are not examined, that the DTC counsel are not citing the relevant and binding judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Rattan Singh s case (supra) of the vintage of 1977 before the Labour Court (s)/industrial Tribunal (s) leading to unnecessary proliferation of uncalled for litigation in this Court. Consequently in a large number of cases of DTC, this Court is being required to interfere and an unnecessary round of litigation in this Court is created solely due to the apathy of the counsel for DTC. Whether such ignorance of the settled position of law by the supreme Court is out of the ineptitude or some other reason is for the top management of DTC to determine. Accordingly while allowing the writ petition it is directed that the petitioner/dtc shall pay the costs, quantified at Rs. 10,000/- payable to the respondent/workman as a precondition for commencement of the hearing before the Tribunal on or before the next date of hearing before the Tribunal. If the costs as directed today are not paid to the respondent/workman within the stipulated period, the proceedings before the Tribunal shall not commence and the impugned order dated 8th October, 2002 shall revive. ( 5 ) PARTIES to appear before the P. O. , Industrial Tribunal-II Karkardooma courts, Delhi on 12th May, 2005. ( 6 ) THE writ petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. All the pending applications stand disposed of. .