Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 06.09.1999 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Panipat, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding that the workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed by him in his Claim petition. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor and had been working as such when a charge-sheet dated 27.08.1991 was served on him alleging therein that he had embezzled Rs. 42/- by way of issuing less tickets to the passengers. The facts are that the bus, in which the petitioner was performing the work of the Conductor, had 70 passengers, of which the booking was done at Panipat Bus Stand and about 30 passengers boarded the bus thereafter and still later 12 more passengers boarded the bus. Some passengers were sitting on the roof of the bus as well. The bus was going to Haridwar because of a MeJa and there was rush because of that. The petitioner was issuing tickets and he has issued tickets to 12 passengers bound for Haridwar. When the bus reached Jamuna Bridge, the bus was checked by four Inspectors and on checking of the bus, 9 passengers were found to be having less tickets and it was found that the passengers were issued tickets of Rs. 196.50 when the full fare was Rs. 238.50. In this way, less tickets amounting to Rs. 42/- were issued by the petitioner while collecting the full amount of fare from the passengers. On the basis of the said checking, a report was submitted by the checking staff. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was issued and an enquiry having been held against him where he was found guilty of the allegations, show cause notice was issued and thereafter, order of termination was issued. The conciliation proceedings failed leading to the reference made to the Labour Court, which, on the basis of the evidence and the pleadings produced by the respective parties, passed its award dated 06.09.1999, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The conciliation proceedings failed leading to the reference made to the Labour Court, which, on the basis of the evidence and the pleadings produced by the respective parties, passed its award dated 06.09.1999, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 19.02.1998, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, treated issue No. 1 as a preliminary one i.e. whether the service of Madan Lal was terminated after holding fair and proper enquiry, if so to what effect, The said issue was decided in favour of the workman holding that the enquiry held by the Management before terminating Services of the workman Madan Lal was not fair and proper. On the request made by the Management, the Management was allowed to lead evidence on merits in accordance with Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. He, therefore, submits that the Management proceeded to put forth its witnesses regarding the merits of the case and has produced MW-3 Sh. Gurcharan Dass Inspector and MW-4 Ram Kumar Sub Inspector, who were the members of the checking staff, who had checked the bus, in which the petitioner was the Conducton He submits that a perusal of the Statement given by Sh. Gurcharan Dass Inspector, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-8, would show that it has been admitted by him that the cash with the petitioner was not checked nor has the names and addresses of the passengers noted down, who had been given less tickets. He has further submitted that they have not taken the Statements of those passengers, from whom the full amount has been taken and less tickets were issued. On this basis, he submits that since there was no evidence on record as to who were the passengers who had been found to be having of less value tickets than the fare charged from them, the petitioner could not be heid guilty on this Charge. He further submits that on the basis of the evidence produced by the Management, it could not be proved as to whether the passengers, who were carrying less denomination tickets, had actually been issued tickets by the petitioner- workman. It is an admitted position that 70 passengers were issued tickets at the booking counter at Panipat Bus Stand and it is also an admitted position that 12 passengers were issued tickets by the petitioner-workman. It is an admitted position that 70 passengers were issued tickets at the booking counter at Panipat Bus Stand and it is also an admitted position that 12 passengers were issued tickets by the petitioner-workman. He, therefore, submits that unless it is asserted that the workman had issued the tickets to the passengers, who were found with less denomination tickets than the fare charged from them, the petitioner could not be held guilty of the alleged mis-conduct. On this basis, he submits that the Management has been unable to prove the charges levelled against the workman. He further submits that the waybill has not been produced by the respondent-Management, as has been recorded by the Labour Court in its award, which is a vital piece of the evidence which would have been depicted the ticket numbers, which were issued by the workman. On this basis, he proceeds further to substantiate his arguments by submitting that the onus to prove the guilt against the workman was on the Management and that having not been discharged, the workman could not have been held guilty by the Labour Court. 4. On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has submitted that the assertion of the counsel for the petitioner that the passengers, who had been checked by the Inspecting staff, were the passengers, who had not been issued tickets by the workman, have been put forth for the first time in the present stage of arguments. He submits that a perusal of the record and award would show that all through, this was an admitted position that the passengers, who were checked, were those who had been issued tickets by the petitioner. He submits that the passengers, who were checked by the Inspecting Staff, were those who were sitting on the root of the bus and they obviously could not be those passengers, who had been issued tickets at the booking counter at the bus stand as seats would have been assigned to such passengers who would have occupied the seats in the bus. 5. On this assertion made by the parties, I have gone through the records of the Labour Court and have specifically gone through the statement of Sh. 5. On this assertion made by the parties, I have gone through the records of the Labour Court and have specifically gone through the statement of Sh. Madan Lal, who had appeared as WW-1 and in his statement dated 08.06.1999, he has nowhere taken a stand that thepassengers, who were checked by the checking staff, were not issued tickets by him. That being the position, the Submission put forth by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Otherwise also, it is an admitted position that thepassengers, who were travelling on the roof of the bus, were issued tickets by the workman, whose tickets were checked by the checking staff, therefore, it can safely be said that the tickets, which were found to be less in denomination than the fair charged, were issued by the workman. 6. A perusal of the award would show that the report of the checking staff has been placed on the records of the Labour Court and is out as Ex. M-10. The said report was submitted to the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat, wherein these four members of the checking staff namely Sh. Gurcharan Dass Inspector MW-3, Ram Kumar Sub-lnspector MW-4, Subhash Chand Sub Inspector and Prem Chand Sub Inspector, stated that they had checked the bus going from Panipat to Haridwar on 02.08.1991 and found that from a group of nine passengers going from Panipat to Haridwar, a sum of Rs. 238.50 had been charged by the petitioner but tickets worth Rs. 196.50 only have been issued to them. In this way, the petitioner has embezzled Rs. 42/-. The checking staff further submitted that un-punched tickets worth Rs. 42/- were obtained from the petitioner and along with Waybill, those were also deposited in the office of the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat. In the Statements before the Labour Court this factual Position has been reiterated and in the cross-examination, MW-3 Gurcharan Dass admitted that they did not record the Statements of the passengers, to whom less tickets were issued. He has also admitted that the cash of the petitioner was not checked. However, he has assigned a reason for not doing so, he states that the bus was full of passengers, who, because ofthe delay which was occuring due to checking, were complaining and stating that their onward journey is being delayed for no fault of theirs. He has also admitted that the cash of the petitioner was not checked. However, he has assigned a reason for not doing so, he states that the bus was full of passengers, who, because ofthe delay which was occuring due to checking, were complaining and stating that their onward journey is being delayed for no fault of theirs. Along with the complaint Ex.M-10, photo copies of the tickets, which had actually been issued by the petitioner to those passengers, have also been attached. In the complaint Ex.M-10, numbers ofthe tickets issued to the group of nine passengers and the numbers of un-punched tickets obtaind from the petitioner, have also been mentioned. The Waybill has not been placed on record but in view of the overwhelming evidence, which goes to show that as a matter of fact, tickets with less denomination were issued worth Rs. 42/- while the full fare was charged from those nine passengers would not vitiate the findings as recorded by the Labour Court. 7. It is a settled preposition in law that the Court can interfere only in cases where there is no evidence. Here the management has been able to produce two of the four Inspectors, who were a part of the checking staff. The management has been able to prove the report of the checking staff i.e. Ex. M-10, which contained the numbers of the tickets, the photo copies of the tickets as well as the details. In view of the above, do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the termination of the workman was in accordance with law as the management has been able to successfully prove embezzlement of Rs. 42/- by the petitioner because of which the Services of the workman had been terminated. 8. Counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, contended that as the Labour Court, vide its order dated 19.02.1998, has categorically held that the enquiry held against the workman before terminating hls Services was not fair and proper, therefore, the workman would be entitled to back wages from the date of termination tili the date of the award as it is ultimately the findings recorded by the Labour Court vide its award dated 06.09.1999, which holds the termination to be in accordance with law. He submits that in the light of the order dated 19.02.1998, the Order of termination stood vitiated and, therefore, at the most, the order of termination can be said to have its effect from the date, the said termination order, on the basis of the evidence produced by the management, was upheld by the award dated 06.09.1999. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. What has been heid vide order dated 19.02.1998 is that the enquiry held by the management before terminating Services of the workman was not in accordance with law but in the light of Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act and on an option given to the management to lead evidence to the effect that the order of termination was justified, the management has been able to substantiate its contention that the termination of the workman was justified on the basis of the evidence led by it. The order of termination having been heid to be justified leading to the upholding of the termination of the petitioner from the Services, it cannot be said that the order of termination would relate to the date of passing of the award. It can, at the most, be said that the order of termination is affirmed on the date of award but it would relate back to the date, the order of termination was passed by the competent authority. 9. Next contention which has been put forth by the counsel for the petitioner is that the punishing authority has passed an order of termination on the workman. That being so, the workman would be entitled to the benefits such as gratuity and provident fund. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner can also not be accepted. A perusal of the termination order dated 07.06.1994 (Annexure P- I) would show that the workman has been held guilty for the mis-conduct, which was of misusing of Government money amounting to Rs. 42/- as per the charge- sheet. Merely because the word terminated with immediate effect has been used in the order dated 07.06.1994 (Annexure P-1) that would not entitle the workman to the gratuity and provident fund, as asserted by the counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present Petition and dismiss the same.