Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a workman working as a Conductor in the respondent State owned Transport Corporation having headquarters at Villupuram. In this Writ Petition, he has come forward to challenge an award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.1 of 2002. By the impugned order, the Labour Court refused to grant any relief and dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner. 2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 8.6.2007. On notice from this Court, the respondent is represented by the counsel. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows: The petitioner was employed as a Conductor and he was attached to Ponneri Depot. On 20.8.2000, when he was working as a Conductor in Route No.55/F, the bus was checked by the checking staff at Ponneri and it was found that the petitioner had received Rs.50/- from 5 passengers for the denomination of Rs.12.50 and he has not paid back the balance amount to the passengers after deducting the cost of the ticket and there was also an excess cash of Rs.77.50 found in the cash bag. An explanation was called for by framing a charge memo dated 23.8.2000 and he was placed under suspension on the same date. After giving explanation, the suspension was revoked on 30.11.2000. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The enquiry officer gave his findings on 15.11.2000. Based upon the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was given on 17.11.2000. The petitioner gave an explanation and subsequently by an order dated 21.2.2001, he was dismissed from service. 4. The petitioner also filed an appeal to the Managing Director against the final order and thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer gave a failure report and on the strength of the failure report, the petitioner filed a Claim Statement, which was registered as I.D.No.1 of 2002 and notice was issued to the respondent Corporation. 5. The respondent Corporation filed a counter statement resisting the claim of the petitioner. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and on his side 4 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.4. On the side of the management, 16 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to M.16 and on their side one T.Kannappan was examined as M.W.1. 6. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and on his side 4 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.4. On the side of the management, 16 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to M.16 and on their side one T.Kannappan was examined as M.W.1. 6. The Labour Court framed three issues, namely i) whether the termination of the petitioner was justified and the punishment imposed on him was disproportionate to the charges levelled against him, ii) whether the finding of the enquiry officer was perverse and not based upon the evidence and iii) whether the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. 7. Insofar as the validity of the enquiry is concerned, the Labour Court in paragraph 7 of the award held that it was not even the case of the petitioner that the enquiry was conducted in unfair manner. On the merits of the case, the Labour Court held that the petitioner, who was examined as W.W.1, in cross-examination admitted that while the Checking Inspector was about to seize his cash bag, he gave one passenger Rs.80/-in order to escape the excess cash found in his cash bag. 8. Notwithstanding that incident, there was also as a matter of fact, that 5 passengers were travelling in the bus without ticket though they were bound to pay Rs.2.50 in respect of their journey. But, according to the petitioner, the passengers got down at the time of checking and went without balance amount being received. The Labour Court found that during the tenure of the petitioner, he had suffered the punishment on similar nature for more than 21 times and therefore his misconduct having been proved and his past service record was not satisfactory, the Labour Court disinclined to interfere with the penalty imposed on the petitioner. 9. The Labour Court also placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.StateTransport Corporation vs. Mahendraanath Tiwari and another reported in 2006 (1) SCC 18. 9. The Labour Court also placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.StateTransport Corporation vs. Mahendraanath Tiwari and another reported in 2006 (1) SCC 18. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Conductor of State owned Transport Corporation is handling public finance and holding a post in the form of trust and even one passenger is denied ticket and moneys were misappropriated, that will be a sufficient ground for dismissing the worker and in such circumstances, the Labour Court or the High Court ought not to exercise discretion in ordering reinstatement of such employees. However, the decision cited by the petitioner were all rendered by High Court and there is no other judgment by the Supreme Court controverting the stand that has taken in MahendraanathTiwaris case. 10. The decisions rendered under identical circumstances by the Supreme Court in RSRTC VS. Ghanshyam Sharma reported in (2002) 10 SCC 330 and Uttranchal Transport Corporation vs.Sanjay Kumar Nantiyal reported in (2008) 12 SCC 131 may be usefully referred to. 11. Under the circumstances, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned award. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.