ORDER S. Muralidhar, J. 1. The Petitioner Delhi transport Corporation ('DTC'), challenges an Award date 24th November 2000 passed by the industrial Tribunal ("Tribunal") rejecting the Petitioner's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Industrial Disputes Act') denying it approval for its action in dismissing the Respondents No. 2 workman from Service. 2. The Respondent was employed as a conductor in the Petitioner Corporation. On 3rd November 1989 while he was performing duty on Bus. No. 3882 enroute Delhi to Faridabad the bus was cheeked and one of the alighting passengers was detected travelling without a ticket. The said passenger informed the checking staff that he had paid fifty paise to the conductor for the ticket but the conductor did not issue a ticket to him. Another co-passengers confirmed the statement of the defaulting passenger. Both the checking staff, they asked the conductor to issue an unquenched ticket to the defaulting passenger but he declined to do so. Further Challan Was issued conductor he refused to sing it. He also refused to get his cash checked and mishandled the checking staff. 3. On the basis of the report of the checking Staff, the disciplinary authority ('DA') issued a charge sheet to the workman on 18th November 1989. After an enquiry he was found guilty of misconduct. After a show cause notice was issued to him, he was removed from service by an order dated 27th July 1989. On the same date, One month's wage was remitted by way of money order and an application was filed by the DTC before the tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The Labour Court noted that the management witness MW-2 admitted that he did not know if the erring passenger had in fact fifty paise to the conductor. No witness had been produced to confirm this. By an order dated 1st September 1999 the tribunal held that the procedure adopted by the inquiry Officer ('IO') was not defective and every opportunity was given to the Respondent workman to defend his case. However, the Tribunal noted that no effort had been made to record the statement of the advance booking conductor posted at ISBT or to Examine the record to ascertain how many ticket ware issued at ISBT and how many passengers ware sold ticket. However, the Tribunal noted that no effort had been made to record the statement of the advance booking conductor posted at ISBT or to Examine the record to ascertain how many ticket ware issued at ISBT and how many passengers ware sold ticket. The Tribunal noted, in its order date 1st September 1999, that the two passengers examined by the conductor clearly told the IO that they had purchased ticket of Rs. 4/- from the conductor at ISBT. The three Rs. 4/- ticket ware taken away by the checking staff and then torn. The said passengers were asked to pay Rs. 50/- The two defence witnesses stated that checking officials had some ill-will towards the conductor. The tribunal further noted that the statement of the erring passenger was hot recorded on the back of the challan. It was also not countersigned by the conductor or any of the other passengers. Consequently, it was opined by the Tribunal that the statement of the checking officials alone were not sufficient to prove the guilt of the conductor. 5. Subsequently, while again examining the evidence in detail, the tribunal in its impugned Award date 24th November 2000 concluded that the statement of MW-2 was not sufficient to the case of the management. Moreover, the report exhibited as Ex-AW-2/1 was silent on the aspect of the conductor having manhandld the checking staff. The tribunal further found that the other witness, namely, one Mr. Krishan Chand, Conductor, whose duty was to issue advance ticket at Faridabad did not' support case of the DTC. It was accordingly held by the tribunal that the DTC failed to establish that the Respondent conductor had collected the fare from the erring passenger and had not issued any ticket. Further, the Statement of the defense witnesses who were Passengers supported the version of the Respondent in the enquiry. In the Circumstance, the Tribunal rejected DTC application seeking approval of the removal of the Respondent workman from the service. 6. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Uday N. Tiwary, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Banatiw, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent workman respectively. 7. Mr. Tiwary Took this Court through the evidence as well as the impugned order of the Tribunal. 6. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Uday N. Tiwary, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Banatiw, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent workman respectively. 7. Mr. Tiwary Took this Court through the evidence as well as the impugned order of the Tribunal. It was submitted that in light of the decision of the Supreme court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti 2001 I AD (S.C.) 506 : AIR 2001 SC 930 , there was no need for the IO to have examined the erring passenger as a witness in the enquiry. It was further submitted that the Tribunal erred in disbelieving the evidence of the checking staff of the DTC and in concluding that the misconduct of the Respondent workman was not proved. 8. The above Submission have been considered. The admitted position is that the DTC failed to produce the erring passenger or the other passenger who purportedly made statements to the checking staff. The workman on the other hand produced two passengers as witnesses and they supported his stand their version remained unchallenged in the enquiry and the IO chose not to believe them. In the circumstances, it was unsafe for the Tribunal to rely on the uncorroborated evidence of the checking staff and accept the report of the IO. The approach of the tribunal, therefore, cannot be faulted. The facts of this case are different in this aspect from those in Karnataka State road transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti. The said decision in distinguishable on facts. 9. In the instant case, the appreciation of the evidence led before it by the tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. The scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the constitution is limited This Court is not expected to sit in appeal over the labour court. In particular, this Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the impugned award of the tribunal only because another view is possible to be taken on the evidence adduced. 10. No ground is made out for interference. the writ petition and the pending application are dismissed. Application dismissed.