Judgment P.S. Asopa, J.-By the present writ petition, the petitioner workman has challenged the grant of approval application vide order dated 210.2000 by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur under Section 33(2) (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in favour of the RSRTC whereby order of removal dated 13.02.1993 has been approved. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that in between Union and the Corporation, a general reference I.T. No. 92/1986 is pending and the workman is a concerned workman. The workman was removed from service vide order dated 18.02.1993, therefore application for approval under Section 33 (2) (b) has been filed before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur with the averment that the workman was Conductor on 14.02.1987 when he was on duty on Bus No. 6702, going toward Shivpuri to Bundi, the said bus was inspected by the inspection team and six passengers were found without ticket. When the inspection team was issuing the ticket from ticket book of the workman, the workman snatched away the same for which the Driver and the passengers also co-operate. The Conductor and the Driver taken away the vehicle and no remark could be put on the concerned document for the aforesaid misconduct. An enquiry was conducted and after hearing the workman on the issue of misconduct and punishment order dated 18.02.1993 was passed whereby, he was removed from service. On the same day, one months salary in lieu of one months notice totaling to Rs. 2,220/-was sent through demand draft. 3. The submission of the workman is that the salary is less than one month pay, but on the calculation of the same as referred in Para 4, the same was in excess of Rs. 200/-. Further submission of the workman regarding fairness of the enquiry was also considered in detail in Para 6 and after consideration of the same, the Industrial Tribunal found the same is fair being in accordance with the principle of natural justice. 200/-. Further submission of the workman regarding fairness of the enquiry was also considered in detail in Para 6 and after consideration of the same, the Industrial Tribunal found the same is fair being in accordance with the principle of natural justice. Para 4 and 6 of the order dated 211.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal are reproduced hereunder:- Þ4& vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr tokc dk izr dj tokc es izkFkhZ us fjtkb.Mj izLrqa mfYy[kr rF;kas dks uk&i= ds fy, vLohdkj djrs gq, dgk gS] fd izkFkhZ us bl izkFkZfNr rhuksa dk;okgh ,d gh fnu lEiUu dh gS] ,d ekg dk osru tfj;s Mh-Mh-ftlesa 200@& #i;s dk vf/kd Hkqxrku fd;k gS oks fdlh Hkh izdkj ,d ekg ds osru ls de ugha gSA fnukad 06-09-1992 rd dk vizkFkhZ dk ewy osru 1030@& #i;s ml ij egaxkbZ HkÙkk 855@& #i;s] edku fdjk;k HkÙkk 120@& #i;s o /kqykbZ HkÙkk 15@& #i;s dqy 2020@& #i;s gksrk gS ijUrq blesa 200@& #i;s vf /kd tksMdj vizkFkhZ dks 2220@& #i;s vnk fd;s x;s gSA izkFkhZ dks izkFkZuk gS fd muds }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vizkFkhZ ds lsokeqfDr vknsk dk vuqeksnu fd;k tk,A 6& izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ ds f[kykQ djkbZ xbZ ?kjs Lrqr ekeys esa tgka rd izyw tk¡p ds lgh o kq} gksus dk izu gS] bl laca/k esa fo}ku izLrqr rdksZ ds lanHkZ esa tk¡p i=koyh dk voyksdu izfrfuf/kx.k }kjk fd;kA mDr tk¡p ls ;g iw.kZ #is.k iekf.kr gksrk gS] fd vizkFkhZ dks mlds fo#) tkjh nks"kkjksi.k esa lquokbZ dk iw.kZ volj iznku fd;k x;k gSA tgka rd vizkFkhZ }kjk izqfrfuf/k fu;Dr djus dh izkFkZuk dk izu gS] tkp vf /kdkjh ds le{k bl ckcr izkFkZuk fnukad 15-12-1987 dks dh xbZ tk¡p vf /kdkjh }kjk Lohdkj dh xbZ] ysfdu vizkFkhZ us vkxkeh lquokbZ ij vius izfrfuf /k dks izLrqr ugha fd;kA vizkFkhZ ds fnukad 15-12-1987 dh tk¡p easc;ku fy;s x;s ;g lgh gS fd mlds }kjk izqfrfuf/k fu;Dr fd;s tkus ds izkFkZuk&i= fn;s tkus ds ipkr~ fnukad 05-02-1990 dks fkojkt flag] ;krk;kr fujh{kd ds c;ku fy;s x;s gS] vkSj ml fnu vizkFkhZ us bl lk{kh ls ftjg dh gS rFkk mlds ckn vizkFkhZ ds c;ku fnukad 31-03-1990 dks nqckjk ys[kc} fd;s x;s gSA vr% mDr tk¡p ds voyksdu ls ;g iw.kZ #is.k izdV gksrk gS] fd fkojkt flag ds c;ku 05-02-1990 dks fy;s tkus ds ckna fnukad 31-03-1990 dks vizkFkhZ ds c;ku ys fy;s x;s gS] bl izdkj dh tk¡p fof /k vuqlkj gS vkSj fdlh izdkj ds izkd`frd U;k; ds fl}kUrksa dh vogsyuk ugha dh xbZ gSAß 4. Thereafter on merit, the case was examined and after considering the evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the charge is proved. Ultimately, a finding was recorded that the order of removal from service dated 18.02.1993 is correct and justified and there is no scope for interference. The misconduct is of serious nature and relating to corruption, therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority of removal from service is fully correct and justified. Ultimately, a finding was recorded that the order of removal from service dated 18.02.1993 is correct and justified and there is no scope for interference. The misconduct is of serious nature and relating to corruption, therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority of removal from service is fully correct and justified. Para 10, 11, and 12 of the order of Industrial Tribunal dated 211.2000 are reproduced hereunder:- 10-eSus fo}ku izfrfuf /k vizkFkhZ dh bl cgl ij fopkj fd;kA eSa muds bl rdZ ls lger ugha gw¡a sa r ekeys easlk{kh fkojktfla D;ksfd izLrqg ;krk;kr fujh{kd us tks dFku fd;s gS] mudks ugha ekuus bZ dkj.k ugha gSa] D;kas j u dk dksfd bl lk{kh ls vizkFkhZ dks iwoZ esa dksbZ jaftk ;k nqeuh ugha Fkh vkSgh bl ckcr mlls dksbZ ftjg dh xbZ gS vkSj u gh mlus tks tokc isk fd;k gS] mlesa bl izdkj yxk;k gS] fd mUgksaus dk dksbZ fujh{k.k ny ds fdlh Hkh lnL; ij dksbZ vkjksus mlls dksbZ uktk;t g ds dFkuksa ls vizkFkhZ ds fo#) vkjksi Hkyh Hkk¡fr izekax dh gksA vr% lk{kh fkojkt flaekf .kr gksrk gSa vizkFkhZ us O;fDrxr #i ls lquokbZ ds le; fnukad 27-02-1992 dks Hkh vuqkklfud vf /kdkjh ds le{k ;g ekuk gS fd mls tk¡p vf /kdkjh }kjk tkap esa lquokbZ dk iw.kZ volj fn;k x;k gSA 11- tgka rd bl ekeys esa os fcy ij fjekdZ vafdr ugha djus dk izu gS] bl laca/k esa lk{kh fkojkt us vius dFkuksa esa Li"V dgk gS fd ifjpkyd >iV~Vh ekjdj fVdV cqd Nhudj ys x;k rFkk bl dkj.k os fcy esa fjekdZ vfdr ugha fd;k tk ldkA vr% mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ks aa esa os fcy ij fjekdZ vafdr ugha djus o vU; pkj ;kf =;kas ds fVdV fujh{k.k ny }kjk tkjh ugha fd;s tkus dk Li"Vhdj.k iw.kZ #i ls mfpr izekf.kr gksrk gS] vkSj mDr tk¡p ds fu"d"kZ ls ;g iw.kZ#is.k izgS] fd vizkFkhZ iq#"kksRre kekZ dh cl dk fujh{k.k fnuakd 14-02-1987 dks fd;s tkus ij mlesa 6 ;k=h fcuk fVdV ik;s x;s ftuls fdjk;k jkf k og fujh{k.k iwoZ gh olwy dj pqdk Fkk vkSfg fujh{k.k T;kasny fcuk fVdV ;kj mUgksa ;kf=;kas ds fVdV tkjh djus yxs vkSus dsoy 2 gh ;kf =;kas ds fVdV tkjh kFkhZ us fVdV cqj okgu dks yss fd;s brus esa gh vizd muls Nhu yh vkSdj jokuk gks x;A tgka rd a fjiksVZ ugha djkus dk izu gS] blls vizkFkhZ dks dksbZ cy ugha feyrk D;kasbl ?kVuk dh iqfyl esfd izkFkhZ ds fujh{k.k ny us bl ?kVuk dh iqfyl esj ;g vko;d Hkh fjiksVZ djuk mfpr ugha le>k vkSugha gS fd muds }kjk iqfyl esa fjiksVZ djokbZ tk;As12- vr% izLrqr ekeys esa mijksDr leLr foospu ls vizkFkhZ ds f[kykQ yxk;k x;k vkjksi iw.kZ #is.k izekf .kr gksrk gS vkSj mDr fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij tks vizkFkhZ dks fnukad 18-02-1993 ds vknsk }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gS] og lgh ,oa mfpr gS] ftlesa dksbZ gLr{ksi djus dh xqtkabk ugha gSA vizkFkhZ dk ;g -R; fu%lUnsg xaHkhj izd`fr dk gS o Hkz"Vkpkj ls lcafa/kr gS vr% vuqkklfud vf /kdkjh }kjk tks mls lsok eqDr fd;k x;k gs og iw.kZ #is.k lgh o mfpr gSA 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record of the case. 6. I find that there is neither any violation of principle of natural justice in the enquiry nor violation of legal principle to make the payment of one month salary in lieu of notice, nor the Tribunal has committed any error in appreciation of the evidence on record. The application of approval granted in favour of RSRTC by the Industrial Tribunal is absolutely in accordance with the principles applicable under Section 33 (2) (B) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, there is no error apparent on the face of record so as to justify the interference by this Court. 7. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed in liminie.