JUDGMENT 1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records concerning with I.D.No.31 of 2004 dated 18.12.2008 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. 2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the award of the first respondent Labour Court, which ordered that the second respondent should be reinstated with continuity of service without back wages. The second respondent has not challenged that award. The second respondent worked as a conductor in the petitioner Transport Corporation. On 2.4.2003, the bus TN-27/N-1113 was operating from Chidambaram to Salem. The Ticket Inspector examined the bus at Vadaloor. It was found that 5 passengers were having tickets showing the price at Rs.10/- each, but in the office copy it was shown as Rs.3.50 each for the journey from Chidambaram to Bhuganagiri. As a result, it is alleged that the second respondent conductor misappropriated Rs.32.50. He committed fraud and deceived the petitioner management. Accordingly, for the alleged violation of Section 19(1)(d) of the Standing Order, charge memo was issued. Domestic enquiry was ordered. Enquiry was conducted and a report was given by the enquiry officer holding that the charges were proved. A second show-cause notice was issued and holding that the explanation was not satisfactory, the second respondent conductor was dismissed from service by order dated 1.8.2003. 3. Against the dismissal order dated 1.8.2003, the second respondent filed I.D.No.31 of 2004 before the first respondent Labour Court. No evidence was let in on both sides. No documents were marked on behalf of the second respondent. However, the petitioner management filed Exs.R-1 to R-19. Four Points were taken up for consideration by the Labour Court and it reads as follows:- “1.) Is it correct to say that the petitioner misappropriated Rs.32.50, thereby committed irregularity punishable u/Sec. 19(1)(d) of the Standing order? 2.) Whether the punishment of dismissal for the alleged misappropriation is proportionate and justifiable? 3.) Whether the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service, backwages along with other monetary benefits? 4.) What is the relief to the petitioner?” 4. 2.) Whether the punishment of dismissal for the alleged misappropriation is proportionate and justifiable? 3.) Whether the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service, backwages along with other monetary benefits? 4.) What is the relief to the petitioner?” 4. On the first point as to whether the second respondent conductor committed irregularity by issuing tickets showing excess amount and thereby misappropriated Rs.32.50, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Ticket Book seized from the second respondent conductor has not been marked as document to establish that the second respondent had written as Rs.10/- in stead of Rs.3.50 by referring the copies of tickets Ex.R-4 which clearly shows the ticket amount as Rs.3.50. While accepting the Ex.R-4, the tickets showing the amount as Rs.3.50, the Labour Court rejected Ex.R-5 which shows the different figure holding that the original was not produced before the Labour Court by the Management. It also came to the conclusion that there is no explanation in the report as to how the correction in the passengers ticket was made. The Labour Court also relied upon Ex.R-9 an invoice issued by the Transport Corporation which shows the details of the ticket issued and came to the conclusion that those five passengers' tickets were not part of the invoice. There was no material correlate the offending tickets with the originals like the invoice or the ticket book. According to the Labour Court, the charge itself is only based on tampered tickets. Holding that the department had failed to establish the case of excessive collection, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal holding the delinquency of misappropriation was not proved. Consequently, dismissal was also not correct. 5. On going through para 7 of the Labour Court award, it is clear that the inspection was done shortly after the tickets were issued. As pointed out by the Labour Court, the originals were not produced by the management to prove the case of excessive collection. There is also no records to show that a sum of Rs.32.50 was collected excessively and it was seized from the second respondent conductor. Invoice Ex.R-9 relied upon by the petitioner management is not relevant to the offending tickets said to have been issued. There is also no records to show that a sum of Rs.32.50 was collected excessively and it was seized from the second respondent conductor. Invoice Ex.R-9 relied upon by the petitioner management is not relevant to the offending tickets said to have been issued. Further, since the original of the tickets alleging excessive collection has not been marked, the Labour Court was justified in setting aside the finding of guilt and the order dismissing the second respondent from service. The Labour Court, in this case, did not award backwages while ordering reinstatement. In such view of the matter, this Court is unable to find any material on facts for interfering with the order of the Labour Court. 6. No other legal plea, except the above factual issue, was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.