Judgment :- .(1) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order in Approval Petition in A. P. No. 220/2004 declining approval for dismissal of the workman/second respondent for the alleged misconduct. .(2) BRIEF facts, which lead to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: .(i) Second respondent was appointed as a daily paid Conductor in the petitioner/ .corporation on May 17,1986 and was absorbed into monthly cadre on September 1,1987 and he was working in the Tirukoilur Branch of petitioner/corporation. On 6. 2. 2004, while the second respondent was performing duty in vehicle bearing. Regn. No. TN-32/n1311 on route No. 305 Special, he had not issued ticket to a passenger travelling from Tiruvannamalai to Aradapattu, after collecting a fare of Rs. 4/-from the said passenger and thereby misappropriated the Corporation money. Therefore, second respondent was placed under suspension and a charge memo was issued to him calling for his explanation. The explanation of second respondent was found to be not satisfactory and therefore, a domestic enquiry was conducted, in which the second respondent participated. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the second respondent had been proved. (ii) Taking into account the Enquiry report and the past record of service of second respondent, a second show cause notice was issued to the second respondent proposing the punishment of dismissal. Since, the explanation of second respondent was not satisfactory, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 9. 4. 2004. (iii) An Industrial Dispute was pending between the Management of petitioner/corporation and the Workman and therefore, the petitioner/corporation filed a petition before the first respondent under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "i. D Act") in Approval Petition No. 220/2004 seeking approval of the action taken against the second respondent. The said petition was dismissed by the first respondent by the impugned order dated 26. 7. 2005. Challenging order the same. Petitioner/tamilnadu State Transport corporation has filed this writ petition. (iv) Upon consideration of the petition filed under Section 33 (2) (b) of I. D. Act, first respondent has held the enquiry conducted against the second respondent is in accordance with the principles of natural justice. First respondent had further held that the reason for not checking the cash bag is not convincing, which is a vital flaw in the enquiry process. First respondent had further held that the reason for not checking the cash bag is not convincing, which is a vital flaw in the enquiry process. First respondent had further held that the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer that the delinquent had committed a misconduct is not a bona fide conclusion. Regarding the mandatory condition of payment, of one month allowance, first respondent has held that the washing allowance of Rs. 44. 50 was not included as wages and therefore, the mandatory requirement of Section 33 (1) (b) was not complied with and dismissed the Approval petition. .(3) CHALLENGING the impugned order, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/corporation Ms. Kala Ramesh has contended that the Conductor himself has admitted that he had not issued the ticket and while so, the Joint Commissioner of Labour (for short "jcl") was not right in saying that the conclusion regarding misconduct was not a bona fide conclusion. Learned counsel would further submit that while considering the approval under Section 33 (2) (b), Court has to only see a prima facie case for dismissal is made out and the first respondent was not right in going into the merits of the matter. .(4) LEARNED counsel for the second respondent/workman Mr. N. Manokaran has submitted that the statute requires compliance of mandatory requirement, which must be strictly complied with and the charges are to be proved by the Department by examining the witnesses. Taking me through the impugned order, learned counsel has further submitted that based upon the materials. First respondent has rightly declined the approval under Section 33 (2) (b). Learned counsel would further submit that the Judicial Review is restricted, unless the order is perverse under Article 226 of the constitution, the order of the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. .(5) OBSERVING that the Management failed to comply with the mandatory condition of section 33 (2) (b) of I. D. Act the learned JCL has declined approval mainly on two grounds: (i) Only if the cash bag had been checked, it would have established whether the workman had collected the fare without, issuing the ticket. The reply of the Management to the deficiency in the checking procedure is unsustainable. (ii) The amount paid as one month wages to the workman at the time of his dismissal is less than the actual one months wages. The reply of the Management to the deficiency in the checking procedure is unsustainable. (ii) The amount paid as one month wages to the workman at the time of his dismissal is less than the actual one months wages. .(6) FOR the discharge or dismissal of workman, payment, of one month salary (or) wages is a mandatory requirement, which should be complied with at the time of taking action or within a reasonable time thereafter. As held by the Supreme Court in Bharat electronics Limited, Bangalore v. Industrial tribunal, Bangalore 1990-II-LLJ-32, 38 (SC)it is for the management to establish when questioned, that the sum paid to the workman under this proviso represented full wages of the month following the date of discharge or dismissal as contemplated by the provision. .(7) IN the present, case, the gross earning of the workman is Rs. 5615. 90. second respondent/workman was paid a sum of Rs. 5572/-at the time of dismissal from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner/corporation has submitted that the short fall of Rs. 44/- (Rs. 5615. 90 - Rs. 5572/-) towards washing allowance cannot be reckoned for the purpose of computing the wages payable to the workman in support of her contention, the learned counsel placing reliance upon an unreported decision in W. A. No. 2196/2005 has held that washing allowance cannot be included in the wages. In the said judgment, the Division bench has held that laundry allowance and attendant benefit allowance cannot be included in the wages. Applying the ratio of the decision, i find that there was substantial compliance of the mandatory requirement of payment of one month wages to the workman. .(8) LEARNED counsel for the Management has contended that while considering Approval petition what was required was only a prima facie case, which does not mean a case proved to the hilt and the Tribunal cannot substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the employer. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has got only to consider whether the view taken by the Department in the enquiry proceedings is the possible view on the evidence on record. .(9) IN the earlier line of decisions Atherton west and Co. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has got only to consider whether the view taken by the Department in the enquiry proceedings is the possible view on the evidence on record. .(9) IN the earlier line of decisions Atherton west and Co. Limited v. Suti Mill Mazdoor union, 1953-II-LLJ-321 (SC) and Automobile products of India Limited v. Rukmaji Bala, 1955-I-LLJ-346 (SC), the Supreme Court has taken the view that in Section 33 Application the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to see whether and prima facie case has been made out and the authority does not sit as Court of Appeal weighing the evidence for itself but only examines the findings of the inquiry officer on the evidence in domestic inquiry as it is, in order to find out either whether there is a prima facie case or if the findings are perverse. .(10) BUT, after Punjab National Bank Ltd v. Workmen 1959-II-LLJ-656 the concept of prima facie examination was expanded into a full-fledged adjudicatory jurisdiction. For arriving at the finding that that the charge has been proved the Supreme Court stressed the adjudicatory scrutiny of the domestic inquiry and the bona fides of the employer. Accordingly, it is open to the authority under section 33 to review the findings of fact arrived at in the domestic inquiry; the questions of adequacy or sufficiency of the evidence, however, were not considered relevant in this limited jurisdiction. It is not open to the tribunal to import the standard of proof required to substantiate the charge in a Criminal court. .(11) WHAT precisely the scope of Tribunals jurisdiction to interfere under Section 33 (2) (b)in granting or refusing permission was laid down in Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai balufohai Patel, AIR 1976 SC 98 : (1976) 1 scc 518 . The Court has succinctly stated the scope of the two-fold approach to the problem by an authority under Section 33 in granting or refusing permission with the following words: .". . . . The Court has succinctly stated the scope of the two-fold approach to the problem by an authority under Section 33 in granting or refusing permission with the following words: .". . . . Firstly, in a case where there is no defect in procedure in the course of a domestic inquiry into the charges of misconduct against an employee, the Tribunal can interfere with an order of dismissal on one or the other of the following conditions: (1) If there is no legal evidence at all recorded in the domestic inquiry against the concerned employee with reference to the charge or if no reasonable person can arrive at a conclusion of guilt on the charge levelled against the employee on the evidence recorded against him in the domestic inquiry. This is what is known as perverse finding. .(2) Even if there is some legal evidence in the domestic inquiry but there is no prima facie case of guilt made out against the person charged for the offence even on the basis that the evidence so recorded is reliable. Such a case may overlap to some extent with the second part of the condition no. 1 above. A prima facie case is not, as in a criminal case, a case proved to the hilt. 3. It must be made clear in following the above principles, one or the other, as may be applicable in a particular case, the Tribunal does not sit as a Court of appeal, weighing or re-appreciating the evidence for itself put only examines the finding of the inquiry officer on the evidence in the domestic inquiry as it is in order to find out either whether there is a prima facie case or if the findings are perverse. " .(12) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner corporation has submitted that at the time of checking on February 12, 2004 second respondent/ Conductor has given a statement admitting receipt of Rs. 4/- towards ticket fare, but by mistake, he had not issued the ticket. Learned counsel would further submit that the said statement has been marked as Exhibit A-3 and that only in the explanation dated February 19, 2004 for the first time as an afterthought second respondent has stated that the concerned passenger was drunk and hence the statement and therefore the statement cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel would further submit that the said statement has been marked as Exhibit A-3 and that only in the explanation dated February 19, 2004 for the first time as an afterthought second respondent has stated that the concerned passenger was drunk and hence the statement and therefore the statement cannot be relied upon. Though the statement given by the second respondent was marked as Exhibit A-3, the non-issuing of ticket even after collecting rs. 4/-could have been established by checking the cash bag. .(13) THE learned JCL has found that the checking Team has not carried out the vital aspect of checking the cash bag of the workman simultaneously when they prepared the Check Report and obtained the statement from the passenger and the Workman. Learned jcl has taken the view that whether there was shortage or not could have been tested with reference to checking of the cash bag. As rightly observed by the Tribunal that the gist of the charge was that the Workman collected Rs. 4/-, but has not issued the ticket. In such circumstances, cash in the cash bag would have been the best evidence to bring home the charge. The Checking Team consisting of four members could have very well checked the cash bag and the Checking Team could have well established that the Workman collected the fare without issuing the ticket. The finding of learned JCL that there was collection of Rs. 4/-, but the ticket was not issued was not a bona fide conclusion. Such finding cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference. .(14) EXERCISING jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court can interfere only when there was no evidence to support the finding or the conclusions were such that no reasonable person could have arrived at. It cannot be said that the conclusions recorded by Joint Commissioner of Labour were contrary to the evidence on record warranting interference with the impugned order. .(15) IN the result, the petitioner/transport corporation has not made out a ground warranting interference with the order of Joint commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) in A. P. No. 220/2004 dated July 26, 2005 and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. .(16) IN the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.