Judgment :- The writ petitioner is a state owned Transport Corporation. Aggrieved by the Award in I.D.No.169 of 1992 dated 13. 1999 passed by the first respondent Labour Court, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court set aside the dismissal order dated 15. 1981 and directed the reinstatement of the second respondent with service continuity and backwages. However, the Labour Court modified the punishment into one of stoppage of increment for a period of one year. .3. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 111. 1999. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim-stay on condition that the petitioner management deposits 50% of the backwages to the credit of the I.D. and also to comply with the condition of monthly payment as per section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ID Act) with effect from 01. 2000. Subsequently, the interim-stay was made absolute on 26. 2000 permitting the workman to withdraw the money deposited and also directing the petitioner to continue to make deposit in Court in terms of section 17-B of the ID Act from 1. 2000. Thereafter, this was modified to the effect that section 17-B payment may be directly made to the workman. But, however, in order to avoid the monthly payment under section 17B, the petitioner themselves have reinstated the second respondent. He also continued in service and got retired on 37. 2004. 4. The second respondent joined the petitioner Corporation as Conductor on 14. 1974. When he was performing his duties in the bus proceeding from Ariyalur to Neyveli, on 05. 1980 near Kollathur, the bus was checked by the Checking Inspectors. It was found that one passenger had not been given ticket and was allowed to travel 13 kms. though a sum of Rs.2.10 was collected from him. It is alleged that the second respondent also refused to sign the Check Report. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the enquiry, the second respondent was dismissed from service on 25. 1981. As against the dismissal, he raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court took up the dispute as I.D.No.162 of 1992. Both sides filed their respective pleadings. 5. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner management filed seven documents and they were marked as Exs.M.1 to M.7. 1981. As against the dismissal, he raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court took up the dispute as I.D.No.162 of 1992. Both sides filed their respective pleadings. 5. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner management filed seven documents and they were marked as Exs.M.1 to M.7. But in the domestic enquiry, no legal evidence was let in to prove the charge of misconduct. The Labour Court held that the passenger himself had stated that it was he who had not taken the ticket and was prepared to pay the penalty for non-purchase of ticket. When the issue was taken before the Branch Manager, the said passenger narrated the entire incident before him. The Branch Manager himself suggested for the imposition of penalty on the passenger. It was also held that there was no misappropriation. Before the Domestic Enquiry Officer, except the Checking Inspector, one Branch Clerk alone was examined and that witness was not an eyewitness to the incident. Even though it was claimed that these two persons have given evidence in the domestic enquiry, the same was not produced before the Labour Court. The Branch Manager of the Jayamkondan Branch was not examined even though on the relevant date the issue was taken before him. The Labour Court also disbelieved the evidence given by the Branch Clerk Veerasamy. For the socalled past misconduct pleaded, the Labour Court found that there was no proof for the same. .6. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court held that no ticket was issued. Though fair was collected from the passenger, there was no motive for misappropriation. It was held that for this purpose the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate. Hence, the Labour Court directed his reinstatement together with all benefits but only suggested for postponement of an increment for one year. 7. The fact that the petitioner management itself had reinstated the workman pending the writ petition will clearly show that the management itself never dealt with the issue with any sincerity. The workman was also allowed to continue in service for over a period of four years and subsequently he also got retired from service after serving the department for 24 years. The impugned Award of the Labour Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting an interference by this Court by the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on it under Article 226 of the Constitution. The impugned Award of the Labour Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting an interference by this Court by the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on it under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. 8. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the workman is entitled to withdraw the backwages deposited in the Labour Court to the credit of the Industrial Dispute. The balance amount shall be calculated by the petitioner Corporation and be paid to the second respondent workman within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All miscellaneous petitions are closed.