Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition is directed against the S award dated 27-9-96 passed by the Labour Court (I), U. P. , Kanpur granting relief of reinstatement with continuity of service to the workman concerned with halfback wages and stoppage of two annual increments without any future effect. 3. Respondent No. 1 workman was appointed as Conductor in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. On the checking of the bus it was found that the workman was carrying 25 passengers without tickets regard ing which charge-sheet was issued to him. After holding domestic enquiry the workman concerned was removed from service vide order dated 3-12-93. 4. An industrial dispute was raised by the workman concerned regarding removal from his service. The State Government being of the opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the parties referred the following matter of dispute to the Labour Court, (I) Kanpur where it was registered as Adjudica tion Case No. 10 of 1995. (Vernacular matter omitted. . . . . . . . Ed.) 5. It appears that a preliminary issue re garding fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry was also framed. The Labour Court upon preliminary issue held that the domestic enquiry against the workman con cerned was in accordance with the principle of natural justice. On merit, by its award dated 27-9-96 the Labour Court decided the refer ence in favour of the workman partially by setting aside the order dated 3-12-93 reinstat ing him in service with half back wages for the period he was not in employment due to removal from service. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the award of the Labour Court is wholly illegal and erroneous and against the material on record from which it is proved that the workman concerned was a habitual offender. It is stated that the punish ment imposed was just and proper and ought not to have interfered by the Labour Court. 7. He also submits that the Labour Court has illegally taken a view that since ten times penalty has not been charged from the pas sengers who were said to be travelling with out tickets as such the workman concerned cannot be held guilty. 8. 7. He also submits that the Labour Court has illegally taken a view that since ten times penalty has not been charged from the pas sengers who were said to be travelling with out tickets as such the workman concerned cannot be held guilty. 8. On behalf of the workman it is admitted before the Labour Court that the checking staff has submitted the report that there is no proof of checking of the bus. It is also admit ted before the Labour Court that there is no proof that the workman concerned had taken fare from 25 passengers but had not issued any tickets to them. This fact is also not proved from the record that the workman had embezzled the fare taken from the passengers. Great emphasis was laid upon the fact that neither the cash with the workman concerned was checked by the Checking staff nor any witness has been produced from which it could be established that the workman con cerned has taken fare from the aforesaid 25 passengers and has embezzled the aforesaid amount. It has come in evidence that the workman has neither charged any fare from the aforesaid 25 passengers nor has issued any tickets to them as such the allegations of em bezzlement of the amount by the workman concerned is totally false, fabricated and have no basis. 9. The Labour Court has recorded a find ing that there is no proof given by the depart ment from which it can be said that the work man had not issued any tickets to the passen gers after taking fare from them. It has been found by the Labour Court that in case the workman had charged the fare from the pas sengers but had not issued tickets to them, they would have certainly made complaint in this regard to the Checking staff at the time of checking of the bus, hence disbelieved the case of the department particularly in view of the statement given by Checking staff Mohd. Khalil Khan, who stated that he had checked the bus on 24-10-92 on Kanpur-Hardoi route but he had not submitted any document to show that the aforesaid check ing was in fact done. Khalil Khan, who stated that he had checked the bus on 24-10-92 on Kanpur-Hardoi route but he had not submitted any document to show that the aforesaid check ing was in fact done. The Labour Court has concluded by saying that until and unless the charges of embezzlement and corruption are proved the punishment of dismissal from ser vice could not be justified and proper. The Labour Court has also concluded that from the record it appears that some irregularities have been committed by the workman con cerned but in so far as question of corruption and embezzlement is concerned it is not at all proved by the evidence on record before it. Hence, the Labour Court considering the pun ishment of removal from service awarded to the workman concerned by the employer highly disproportionate to the charges substituted punishment of reinstatement with half back wages as well as stoppage of two an nual increments without any future effect. 10. In my opinion, it is clear from the im pugned award that in so far as the charges of corruption and embezzlement are concerned, they are not proved against the workman con cerned. However, since the workman has committed some irregularities as has also been found by the Labour Court and also taking into the fact that he has already been rein stated in service in pursuance of the interim order of this Court dated 1-10-97 he is rein stated in service with 1/4th back wages which would meet the ends of justice. The impugned award is accordingly modified. The workman shall be entitled only 1/4th back wages from the date of reinstatement. 11. The writ petition is accordingly, partly allowed. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. .