Judgment :- 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Salem challenging the order passed by the Labour court, Salem giving direction to the petitioner to reinstate the 2nd respondent without any continuity of service, back wages and other benefits. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition is given as under: The second respondent, Mr.P.Balaji was employed as a conductor with the petitioner Corporation from 26.01.1996. On 16.01.1996, when he was on duty in Bus No.TN 29/N 0331 plying from Krishnagiri to Vilangamudi, the checking inspector inspected the vehicle at 9.30 a.m. at Rajankottai stage. At the time of inspection made by the checking inspector, admittedly there were 55 passengers in the bus. But, the checking inspector, on his verification, found that only 47 passengers were issued tickets by the second respondent. But, in respect of the rest of the 8 passengers, the second respondent failed to issue tickets. Further, the second respondent was also in possession of excess cash of Rs.135/- for which he had no explanation initially, but, later, the 2nd respondent had also admitted his offence and has stated that he had forgotten to issue tickets and it was only due to his forget-fulness. Therefore, a charge sheet was issued containing the following charges. 1. That he did not issue tickets to 8 passengers after having received the fare. 2. That he had an excess amount of Rs.135/- that the amount collected in his cash bag. 3. That he was negligent, irresponsible in his duty. 4. That he had caused loss and bad name to the Corporation. 5. That he had violated clause 14(3) (b) and (1) of the standing orders. 3. The second respondent, after receiving the charge memo, submitted his explanation stating that the bus was having 55 passengers on the crucial day. Within 5 minutes from the take off of the bus, the checking inspector intercepted the bus and there was a heavy rush of passengers in the bus. Therefore, the second respondent was not able to complete his issuance of tickets to all the 55 passengers. However, he was able to issue tickets to 47 passengers leaving only 8 passengers to be issued with tickets. Further explanation submitted was that in respect of 8 passengers neither the tickets were issued nor the money was collected. Therefore, the second respondent was not able to complete his issuance of tickets to all the 55 passengers. However, he was able to issue tickets to 47 passengers leaving only 8 passengers to be issued with tickets. Further explanation submitted was that in respect of 8 passengers neither the tickets were issued nor the money was collected. Therefore, in view of short span of time, the second respondent had not issued tickets to all the passengers. The further explanation offered by the second respondent in respect of excess cash found in his cash bag was also properly explained stating that on the date of occurrence namely, on 26.01.1996 the regular conductor in-charge of the bus No.TN 29/N 0331 plying from Krishnagiri to Vilangamudi was absent. Therefore, the second respondent was asked to go as a substitute conductor. Since the 2nd respondent was having his own money, he was not able to keep it anywhere except in his own cash bag. 4. But, the above explanation was not accepted by the petitioner management. Therefore, an enquiry was held and in the said enquiry, the 2nd respondent also took part. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to which the 2nd respondent submitted his explanation repeating the same explanation offered by him to the earlier notice. The Disciplinary Authority, having not satisfied with the explanation offered, passed an order of removal from service, on the basis of the finding of the enquiry report, which held the charges framed against the second respondent as proved. The said order of removal passed by the petitioner Corporation was challenged before the Labour court. 5. The Labour court having considered the matter in detail had given two reasons for setting aside the order of removal passed by the Corporation against the second respondent. Firstly, the Labour court has held that there were 55 passengers at the time the checking inspector inspected the vehicle. But, the conductor/the second respondent herein was not able to manage the rush of the passengers in the said bus. Though he was able to issue tickets to 47 passengers, he was not able to complete the issuance of tickets to all the 55 passengers within 5 minutes from the time of take off from the original destination. But, the conductor/the second respondent herein was not able to manage the rush of the passengers in the said bus. Though he was able to issue tickets to 47 passengers, he was not able to complete the issuance of tickets to all the 55 passengers within 5 minutes from the time of take off from the original destination. The Labour court has found that the second respondent was not able to issue tickets to all the 55 passengers. Secondly, on the question of excess cash found in the cash bag, it was also held that the second respondent/conductor was asked to work as a substitute in the last minute since the regular conductor was absent. Therefore, the Labour court has found the order of removal passed by the petitioner Corporation as disproportionate to the charges levelled against the second respondent. On that basis, setting aside the order of removal was passed directing the management to respondent to reinstate the 2nd respondent without back wages. The correctness of the said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation attempted to demonstrate the wrong reasoning given by the learned Labour court. But, he was not able to satisfactorily explain as to how and where the Labour court has committed a mistake in setting aside the order of removal passed by the petitioner/corporation. 7. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the 2ndrespondent submits that it is highly impossible to issue tickets to all the 55 passengers in 5 minutes from the time of take off of the bus from the original destination. It is also the case of the second respondent that the Checking Inspector has admittedly inspected the bus bearing No.TN 29/N 0331 within 5 minutes from the time of take off from the original destination. Therefore, it was contended that the learned Labour court, has rightly held that the second respondent was not able to issue tickets to all the 55 passengers within 5 minutes from the time of starting of the bus from the original destination. In respect of the excess cash amount found in the cash bag, he further submitted that on the date of incident, namely 26.01.1996, the regular conductor was found absent. Therefore, the management asked the second respondent to go as a substitute conductor in the bus bearing No.TN 29/N 0331. In respect of the excess cash amount found in the cash bag, he further submitted that on the date of incident, namely 26.01.1996, the regular conductor was found absent. Therefore, the management asked the second respondent to go as a substitute conductor in the bus bearing No.TN 29/N 0331. Therefore, he was not able to keep his own money and the said money was found excess which is also fairly admitted by the second respondent and the said admission cannot be found against the second respondent/conductor. On that basis, the Labour court having found the punishment disproportionate to the charges, has rightly interferred with the order of removal from service. 8. Further, the learned counsel appearing for second respondent also took me through the deposition of PW2 (Driver).In fact, the driver who was cross-examined as PW2 before the Labour Court has also admitted the fact that the checking inspector intercepted the bus within 5 minutes of its starting from the original destination. Usually, the driver used to start the vehicle, after the conductor issued tickets to all the passengers in the bus. But on the date of incident, there was already a delay of one hour and the driver was not able to stop the bus till the issuance of the tickets to all the passengers was over. This is how the 8 passengers were left out without issuing tickets by the second respondent/conductor. On the basis of the deposition made by the driver of the vehicle, and evidence adduced from both side, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges made against the conductor was not substantively proved and accordingly set aside the order of removal. 9. At the time of inspection of the bus, there were 55 passengers were found travelling except 8 passengers without tickets. 9. At the time of inspection of the bus, there were 55 passengers were found travelling except 8 passengers without tickets. All 8 passengers came in a group, were going from Kaveripattinam to Rasankottai since the time to reach the distance would take only 5 minutes, the Labour Court found on evidence that within 5 minutes from Kaveripattinam, the conductor was able to issue tickets only to 47 passenger and in view of his illness and over crowd, the conductor could not issue tickets to one group of passengers and this was also due to pausity of time and accepting these reasons, which disagreeing with the quantum of punishment, by modifying the punishment of removal into one of reinstatement into service refused to grant back wages and continuity of service. In my view, the said finding does not call for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.