Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions have arisen out of the same facts and circumstances, a common order is passed. .3. The writ petition in W.P.No.16427 of 2000 has been filed against the award of the second respondent labour Court, dated 6. 2000, made in I.D.No.132 of 1995. 4. With regard to the writ petition in W.P.No.16427 of 2000, it has been stated that the petitioner Corporation is a Public Transport undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The first respondent was working in the petitioners Corporation as a Conductor. While he was on duty, on 4. 1994, in the vehicle with registration No.TCB 8540, Route No.132A, the checking authorities had entered the bus, at Aladiyoor. While checking, it was noticed that four passengers had boarded the bus at Kottarangulam to travel to Eramalpuram. They had paid Rs.10/-to the Conductor to buy the tickets. After collecting the necessary bus fare, the Conductor had paid back the balance amount of Rs.4/-to the passengers. After collecting the bus fare of Rs.1.50 per head, the Conductor had issued them two invalid tickets CD 941 series numbering 30093 and 30097. On seeing the checking authorities, the Conductor had written four tickets. They are CD 941 series. In the ticket Number 30152, the starting point was not mentioned. In the ticket Number 30153, the destination point was not mentioned and in the amount column, instead of Rs.1.50, he has written Rs.1. and paise 5 only. In the ticket number 30155, both the starting point and the destination point were not mentioned. In the amount column, in stead of Rs.1.50/-, he had written Rs.1 only. They were written in a hurry on seeing the checking Inspectors. 5. It has been stated that if the Checking Inspectors had not inspected, a sum of Rs.6 due to the petitioners Corporation would have been misappropriated. The first respondent had been suspended pending enquiry, from 14. 1994 and he was charge sheeted, on 14. 1994, under Sections 16(4), 16(13) and (14) of the Standing Orders of the Transport Corporation. The delinquent employee was allowed to take copies of the records, on 24. 1994, as per his request and he had submitted his reply, on 24. 1994. The first respondent had been suspended pending enquiry, from 14. 1994 and he was charge sheeted, on 14. 1994, under Sections 16(4), 16(13) and (14) of the Standing Orders of the Transport Corporation. The delinquent employee was allowed to take copies of the records, on 24. 1994, as per his request and he had submitted his reply, on 24. 1994. Since his reply was not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted giving him sufficient opportunity to put forth his case. On 16. 1994, the enquiry had been commenced and the delinquent employee had fully participated in the said enquiry. Based on the evidence available and on considering the deposition of the witnesses, the enquiry officer had found the first respondent guilty of the charges and he had submitted his findings, on 26. 1994. .6. Based on the report of the enquiry officer and on considering the past records of the delinquent employee and in view of the severity of the charges, the petitioner Corporation had decided to dismiss the first respondent from service. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the first respondent stating the proposed punishment of dismissal, on 26. 1994. The first respondent had submitted his reply, on 17. 1994 and since it was not satisfactory, the petitioner Corporation had imposed on the first respondent the punishment of dismissal from service by an order, dated 212. 1994. 7. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service passed against him by the petitioner Corporation, the first respondent employee had raised an Industrial Dispute before the second respondent, in I.D.No.132 of 1995. The second respondent labour Court, by its award, dated 6. 2000, had directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the first respondent in service, with continuity of service and without backwages. 8. Against the award of the labour Court, dated 6. 2000, made in I.D.No.132 of 1995, the petitioner Corporation has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation had submitted that the award of the second respondent labour Court suffered from errors apparent on the face of the records and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The second respondent labour Court had erred in passing the award reinstating the first respondent in service on the presumption that the Conductor had not issued invalid tickets to the passengers. The second respondent labour Court had erred in passing the award reinstating the first respondent in service on the presumption that the Conductor had not issued invalid tickets to the passengers. Further, the second respondent labour Court had failed to see that the enquiry had been conducted properly, following the principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer had carefully studied the deposition of the witnesses and the records submitted before him during the enquiry, while coming to the conclusion that the misconduct committed by the first respondent had been proved beyond doubt. The admission of the first respondent that he had written the tickets only on seeing the checking Inspectors would show his malafide intention. Since the misconduct of the first respondent is serious in nature, the punishment of dismissal from service had been imposed on him. .10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation had further submitted that the award of the labour Court is liable to be set aside, as the second respondent labour Court had taken into consideration certain extraneous factors, while passing the award and it had also exceeded its jurisdiction. There was no offer or agreement made by the petitioner Corporation, at any point of time, agreeing to reinstate the petitioner in service, without backwages, as mentioned in the award of the second respondent labour Court, dated 6. 2000. Therefore, the award passed by the second respondent labour Court in I.D.No.132 of 1995 is liable to be set aside. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had submitted that the labour Court had come to the right conclusion after analysing the evidence available on record. The labour Court had found that the driver of the bus, in which the incident is alleged to have been taken place, has not been examined even when the delinquent employee had stated that he had forgotten to issue the tickets to the four passengers, who had boarded the bus, only due to the fact that the driver of the bus had called him to the front portion of the bus and had requested for help while negotiating a narrow bend on the road. If the findings of the enquiry officer is that the four passengers were given invalid torn tickets, there is no necessity for the first respondent to issue fresh tickets in a hurry, after seeing the checking Inspectors. If the findings of the enquiry officer is that the four passengers were given invalid torn tickets, there is no necessity for the first respondent to issue fresh tickets in a hurry, after seeing the checking Inspectors. When the fresh tickets had been issued, the passengers would have informed the Conductor that he had already issued the necessary tickets to them. In the absence of a such statement from the passengers, the labour Court had come to the conclusion that the first respondent had been negligent in not issuing the tickets to the passengers at the appropriate time. Since there was no intention of misappropriation, the lenient punishment was contemplated by the second respondent labour Court to be imposed on the first respondent delinquent employee. Further, the labour Court had also found that the punishment imposed on the first respondent on the earlier occasions could not be taken note of, as they have not been substantiated by the petitioner Corporation with necessary evidence before the labour Court. The labour Court had also held that the petitioner Corporation had agreed to reinstate the first respondent delinquent employee in the service of the petitioner Corporation, without backwages. .12. In such circumstances, the labour Court had passed the impugned award, dated 6. 2000, in I.D.No.132 of 1995, directing the reinstatement of the first respondent in service in the petitioner Corporation, without backwages. Once it has been recorded by the labour Court that the petitioner Corporation had submitted that it would reinstate the first respondent in service, without backwages, it cannot be questioned at a later point of time by the petitioner Corporation. 13. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner Corporation as well as the first respondent and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner Corporation had not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the award of the labour Court, dated 6. 2000, made in I.D.No.132 of 1995. The labour Court had come to its conclusion based on the evidence available before it and based on the statement said to have been made by the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the first respondent in service, without backwages. 2000, made in I.D.No.132 of 1995. The labour Court had come to its conclusion based on the evidence available before it and based on the statement said to have been made by the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the first respondent in service, without backwages. In such a case, a further enquiry cannot be conducted by this Court to verify whether such a statement had been made before the labour Court or not. Further, the labour Court had come to the conclusion that the first respondent had committed irregularity in not issuing the tickets to the passengers who had boarded the bus at the appropriate time. .14. The labour Court, while coming to its conclusion, had accepted the statement made by the first respondent delinquent employee that the irregularity had occurred only due to the fact that the driver of the bus had called him to the front portion of the vehicle to help him while negotiating a turn at the narrow bend on the road. Thereafter, the first respondent had forgotten to issue the tickets to the passengers who had boarded the bus and only on seeing the checking Inspectors, he had hurriedly issued the tickets and made the necessary entries. Since the first respondent had no intention of misappropriation of the funds of the petitioner Corporation, the labour Court had set aside the order of dismissal issued against the first respondent by the petitioner Corporation and it had ordered the reinstatement of the first respondent in service, without backwages. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient grounds to quash the impugned award of the labour Court, dated 6. 2000, made in I.D.No.132 of 1995. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 15. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the award of the labour Court, dated 6. 2000, made in I.D.No.132 of 1995, insofar as it had denied the payment of backwages to him. 16. The labour Court, while coming to its conclusions, had held that the Management of the first respondent Corporation had submitted, during the enquiry before the labour Court, that it would reinstate the petitioner in service, without backwages. Even though the labour Court had given its finding on merits, it has also relied on the statement made by the first respondent Management with regard to the reinstatement of the petitioner in service, without the payment of backwages due to him. 17. Even though the labour Court had given its finding on merits, it has also relied on the statement made by the first respondent Management with regard to the reinstatement of the petitioner in service, without the payment of backwages due to him. 17. In such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had admitted that the recording of the statement of the first respondent Management, by the labour Court, is true and correct. While so, it would not be appropriate for the petitioner to claim the backwages contrary to the conclusions arrived at by the labour Court in its award, dated 6. 2000, in I.D.No.132 of 1995. 18. In view of such submission being made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petition stands closed as no further orders are required to be passed therein.