Judgment :- 1. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Corporation, challenging the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 29. 2000,made in I.D.No.32 of 1999, awarding reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages, along with other attendant benefits. 3. The petitioner Corporation had submitted that the second respondent had raised an industrial dispute challenging the order of dismissal, dated 2. 97, before the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.32 of 1999. It has been further stated that the second respondent was employed as a conductor in the petitioner Corporation. While he was on duty, on 10. 95, the daily invoice bearing ticket Nos.NMF 082022 L26-54-26561-27000 and L26-55-27001-27500 was handed over to the second respondent at Mathuranthakam Depot. As the vehicle in which the second respondent was on duty, as a Conductor, had broken down it was taken to the Central Depot at Madras by the second respondent and the Driver. He was asked to report to the Mathuranthakam Depot, where he was working. However, till 110. 95, he had not reported to the Depot about the break down of the bus nor had he remitted the collection of the day which was Rs.9760. After deducting Rs.26/-towards his batta, he should have deposited a sum of Rs.947.60/-. However, the second respondent had failed to do so and he did not hand over the tickets till 95. Thus, he had misappropriated the collection made, on 10. 95, causing financial loss to the petitioner Corporation. Therefore, the charges had been framed against the second respondent. The second respondent had submitted his explanation for the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the second respondent, the petitioner Corporation had ordered for a departmental enquiry. The enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in a fair and proper manner providing sufficient opportunity to the second respondent to appear before the Enquiry Officer and to defend his case. After a detailed examination of the witnesses and the records that were available, the Enquiry Officer had held that the charges against the second respondent were proved. A second show cause notice, along with the enquiry report, had been served on the second respondent, calling for his explanation. The second respondent had submitted his explanation and requested for the dropping of the charges. A second show cause notice, along with the enquiry report, had been served on the second respondent, calling for his explanation. The second respondent had submitted his explanation and requested for the dropping of the charges. However, since no valid or substantive reasons were given by the second respondent, the petitioner Corporation had decided to remove him from service, vide its order, dated 97. Against the said dismissal order, the second respondent had raised an industrial Dispute before the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.32 of 1999, seeking the relief of reinstatement, continuity of service, backwages and for other attendant benefits. The first respondent Labour Court, without considering the documents marked as M.1 to M.14, had erroneously ordered reinstatement of the second respondent, with continuity of service and with 50% backwages, along with the other attendant benefits, vide its award, dated 29. 2000. .4. It has been further stated that the Labour Court had passed the impunged order without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Having found that the second respondent had not remitted the amount of Rs.974.60, which was the collection made, on 10. 95, the Labour Court ought not to have ordered in favour of the second respondent, reinstating him in service, with 50% backwages and other attendant benefits. The Labour Court had failed to see that ample opportunities were given to the second respondent to appear before the Enquiry Officer. However, the second respondent had failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and to cross examine the management witness. As such the Labour Court ought to have come to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted according to the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court had also failed to see that the second respondent is an incorrigible offender and that he had been punished on many previous occasions for various misconducts. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation had submitted that the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 29. 2000, is contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. The first respondent Labour Court had not taken into consideration, the past misconduct of the second respondent before passing the said award. It had also failed to note that the action taken by the petitioner Corporation is in accordance with law and therefore, it is valid. 2000, is contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. The first respondent Labour Court had not taken into consideration, the past misconduct of the second respondent before passing the said award. It had also failed to note that the action taken by the petitioner Corporation is in accordance with law and therefore, it is valid. It was clearly proved, during the enquiry conducted against him, that the second respondent had misappropriated the funds of the petitioner Corporation, as he did not remit the collection, for 10. 95, on the same day. The award passed by the first respondent Labour Court is not supported by material evidence and therefore, it is liable to be set aside by this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the first respondent Labour Court had arrived at the right conclusions by reinstating the second respondent in service, with continuity of service, with 50% back wages and other attendant benefits, since the petitioner Corporation had not sufficiently proved the charges against the second respondent by placing the relevant materials before the first respondent Labour Court. The enquiry conducted against the second respondent was ex-parte and sufficient opportunity was not given to the second respondent to putforth his case. The Driver of the bus in which the second respondent was on duty on 10. 95, had not been examined even though his report had been taken into consideration. Therefore, the second respondent had no opportunity to cross examine the management witness as he was not provided with such an opportunity. The punishment imposed on the second respondent is highly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct said to have been committed by the second respondent. Therefore, the award of the first respondent Labour Court reinstating the petitioner in service, with continuity of service and 50% of backwages and other attendant benefits is in accordance with law. .7. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation, as well as the second respondent employee, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 29. 2000, made in I.D.No.32 of 1999, is in accordance with law. 2000, made in I.D.No.32 of 1999, is in accordance with law. The petitioner Corporation has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 29. 2000. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner Corporation to substantiate its claims that the second respondent had been given sufficient opportunity to putforth his case during the departmental enquiry conducted against him, with regard to the charges framed against the second respondent delinquent employee. The driver of the bus in which the second respondent was on duty on 10. 95, had not been examined even though the report he had submitted had been taken into consideration during the enquiry. 8. Even though the petitioner Corporation had submitted that the Labour Court had failed to take note of the past record of punishment imposed on the second respondent for his previous misconducts, no material evidence had been placed before the Labour Court to show that such punishments imposed on the second respondent were pursuant to the enquiry proceedings conducted against him. Since the second respondent had not been put on sufficient notice with regard to the past misconducts alleged to have been committed by him, the Labour Court had rightly rejected the statements made on behalf of the petitioner Corporation that the second respondent deserves the punishment of dismissal from service as he is an incorrigible habitual offender. The first respondent Labour Court had also found that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the second respondent was highly disproportionate in nature. The first respondent Labour Court had come to such a conclusion, based on the evidence available before it. It would not be appropriate for this Court to reappraise the evidence to come to a different conclusion. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court, dated 29. 2000, made in I.D.No.32 of 1999. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.