Judgment :- Challenge is made to an order passed by the first respondent, the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Madras in A.P. No.182/2003 dated 12. 2004, whereby an order of dismissal of the second respondent from service, a Conductor attached to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division was not approved. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition can be stated as follows:- .(i) The second respondent was serving as a Conductor in the petitioner-Management/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division. On 7. 2002, while he was performing his duty in the vehicle bearing registration No.TN57/N-0323, which was being plied from Bodi to Thevaram, the Checking Inspector made a check and found that the second respondent, though got Rs.10/- from a passenger, issued one ticket for Rs.5/- and misappropriate the other Rs.5/-without issuing ticket for the luggage, which the passenger was holding and thus caused loss to the Management. .(ii) Following the same, the second respondent was kept under suspension and a charge memo was issued. Explanation was called for and the same was tendered by the second respondent. Not satisfied with the same, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted an enquiry and after following the formalities, he found that the charges were proved. After issuing second show-cause notice, an order of dismissal was served upon the petitioner and it was placed for approval as contemplated under law before the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), who is the first respondent herein. (iii) The first respondent, after looking into the available materials, was of the opinion that it was not a fit case to approve the order of dismissal and rejected the request of the petitioner-Management. Under the circumstances, challenge is made to the order passed by the first respondent herein by the Transport Corporation. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the Transport Corporation, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, though all the procedural formalities have been followed and principles of natural justice have also been followed, which has also been accepted by the first respondent, the first respondent has gone into the factual position and rejected to approve the order of dismissal. Advancing arguments on behalf of the Transport Corporation, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, though all the procedural formalities have been followed and principles of natural justice have also been followed, which has also been accepted by the first respondent, the first respondent has gone into the factual position and rejected to approve the order of dismissal. The charge levelled against the second respondent is that while he was serving as Conductor on the alleged date, the Check Inspector found that he had not issued Rs.5/-ticket for the luggage, which was carried by a passenger. The Check Inspector, after noticing the same, obtained signature of the passenger and the second respondent also signed in the statement given by the passenger without any murmur. 5. But the reason given by the first respondent in not approving the order of termination is that though charge memos are two in numbers, neither of them was served upon the second respondent-Conductor, which would go to show that he was not made known the charge made against him. Learned counsel would submit that while facts were admitted and the second respondent-Conductor has also signed in the necessary statement given by the passenger immediately at the spot itself, all these things cannot be now canvassed. Apart from this, the first respondent, who has no jurisdiction to go into the factual position, has gone into and investigated upon and came to an erroneous conclusion in not approving the order of dismissal. Hence the same has got to be set aside. 6. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent on the above contentions. 7. After careful consideration of submissions made by either side, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the first respondent has got to be sustained. It is not in controversy that on 7. 2002, the second respondent was performing his duty as Conductor in the Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN57/N-0323 which was plying between Bodi and Thevaram. According to the charge memo, the second respondent-Conductor has not issued ticket to a passenger for Rs.5/- representing the charge for the luggage, which he was holding and he has misappropriated Rs.5/-without issuing ticket and caused loss to the Management. 8. According to the charge memo, the second respondent-Conductor has not issued ticket to a passenger for Rs.5/- representing the charge for the luggage, which he was holding and he has misappropriated Rs.5/-without issuing ticket and caused loss to the Management. 8. The first respondent has categorically pointed out that though principles of natural justice have been followed and enquiry, in the strict sense, was conducted, but it is a case where the petitioner-Management has not proved its case. It is not in controversy that a check was made by the Inspector of the Department. According to the department, the passenger was actually carrying 25 kg. and hence a ticket should have been issued for a sum of Rs.5/-, but the same was misappropriated by him. 9. The case of the Management is that a spot inspection was made. If so, spot inspection memo has to be prepared and the same has to be served upon the delinquent, who is the second respondent. But, after obtaining his signature, both these memos were very well placed before the Enquiry Officer. It is quite indicative of the fact that even without preparation of charge memo, the signature of the Conductor was obtained . It would further indicate the fact that the spot charge memo was not served upon the delinquent and thus, he was not given an opportunity of making him to know what was the charge levelled against him. The contention put forth by the Management is that the delinquent has signed the paper, which was also placed before the Officer, cannot be the reason. In the instant case, once spot charge memo was not served upon the delinquent, it would go to the root of the matter. 10. Added further, the first respondent pointed out that according to the delinquent, the luggage was weighing only 10 kgs. and according to the Checking Inspector, it was 25 kgs. But no evidence was available before the Enquiry Officer to accept either of the contentions. The Enquiry Officer has accepted the case of the Management and found that as if the luggage carried by the passenger was 25 kgs. and also found that the charge levelled against the delinquent was proved. 11. The first respondent has categorically pointed out the variation in all the contentions, for not giving his approval. The Enquiry Officer has accepted the case of the Management and found that as if the luggage carried by the passenger was 25 kgs. and also found that the charge levelled against the delinquent was proved. 11. The first respondent has categorically pointed out the variation in all the contentions, for not giving his approval. The contention of the petitioner that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to investigate into the factual position, but had erroneously done so, though attractive, it will not stand scrutiny in law. Law would require that the Authority himself go into the matter and find out the correctness of the order, which is sought to be approved. The first respondent is correct in looking into the factual position and rejecting the approval. Hence the order of the first respondent has got to be sustained. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps. are also dismissed. No costs.