JUDGMENT : PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. 1. The above writ petition is directed against the Labour Court Award passed in Adjudication Case No. 294/1993 against the present Petitioner who is employer. 2. The Respondent No. 1 was in service as Bus Driver with the Petitioner. He was in-charge of Vehicle No. UHN 854. On April 2, 1985, the said vehicle was plying on Meerut-Shikohabad route. Shri Hukum Singh was conductor at that time. Departmental proceeding was initiated against the Driver, Respondent No. 1 herein and the conductor, Shri Hukum Singh on the allegations that at about 16.30 p.m. the bus was not stopped immediately when signal to stop the bus was given by a checking party consisting of Shri Y.P. Chauhan, Traffic Superintendent, Shri Kshetrapal Singh, Traffic Inspector and Shri Rishal Singh, Traffic Inspector. The bus stopped at a considerable distance in order to enable the conductor, Hukum Singh to correct the entires in his way bill. On checking of the record of the bus conductor, serious irregularities were detected. The conductor refused to sign below the checking remarks on the way bill and instead got ready to fight. The charge against the driver, Respondent No. 1 herein is that he instigated the passengers and after getting down from the steering wheel, commanded the checking party to cancel the remarks on the way bill. He misbehaved with the checking party and collected a mob with antisocial elements. He beat up the members of the checking party during which the way bill got torn. 3. A departmental inquiry after serving a charge sheet was conducted against the driver wherein he was found guilty. His services were terminated by the order dated January 7, 1991. An industrial dispute was raised by the driver which was referred by the State Government u/s 4-K for adjudication to the Labour Court. The State Government referred the dispute to determine the legality and validity of the termination order dated January 7, 1991 and if it is bad, the relief which can be granted to the driver. The Labour Court by the impugned award has held that the termination order terminating services of the driver is bad and illegal and has ordered his reinstatement with all full back-wages and continuity in service. 4. The Labour Court by the impugned award has held that the termination order terminating services of the driver is bad and illegal and has ordered his reinstatement with all full back-wages and continuity in service. 4. Shri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Labour Court has decided the matter as if it was hearing an appeal against the findings recorded in the domestic inquiry. He submits that the witnesses were produced even before the Labour Court and Labour Court was not justified in holding that the termination order is bad, taking a different view of the matter by re-appreciating the evidence. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is the case of misconduct and as such the award of the Labour Court is liable to be quashed. 5. Controverting the above submissions, Shri Vinod Sinha, the learned Counsel for the Driver submit its that the filling of the present writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. He further submits that the Petitioner has, compromised the dispute with the conductor namely Hukum Singh. The main charge was against the conductor who had committed irregularity by permitting the passengers to travel without tickets. He has been reinstated but without back-wages as has been noticed in the order of the Labour Court also. 6. Considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties. 7. This Court while granting the interim relief by the order dated February 28, 2006 had stayed the recovery of the back-wages in pursuance of the impugned award subject to the condition that the Petitioner shall reinstate the Respondent No. 1 i.e., the Conductor. In pursuance of the said order, the Respondent No. 1 must have been reinstated. Without entering into the various pleas raised in the petition, it is not desirable to grant any relief to the Petitioner so far as reinstatement part is concerned, for the reason that the Petitioner has compromised the dispute with the main guilty person namely Hukum Singh, the conductor. The checking party is obviously meant to check the conductor so as to find out as to whether a conductor has issued tickets to all the persons travelling in the bus and there is no financial loss of the Corporation. 8. In the present case, the conductor was charge sheeted for permitting the passengers to travel without tickets. The checking party is obviously meant to check the conductor so as to find out as to whether a conductor has issued tickets to all the persons travelling in the bus and there is no financial loss of the Corporation. 8. In the present case, the conductor was charge sheeted for permitting the passengers to travel without tickets. The allegations against the bus driver is that he stopped the bus at a considerable distance and misbehaved with the checking party. The Petitioner having condoned the misconduct of the conductor, I find no illegality in the impugned award so far as it relates to reinstatement of the driver is concerned. The only question remains with regard to the payment of back wages. Taking into consideration that the fact that no back wages was given to the conductor Hukum Singh, the Respondent No. 1 also deserves the same treatment, on the principle of parity. 9. In view of above discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. 10. The Labour Court Award so far as it relates to back wages is concerned is hereby set aside but in other respect, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.