Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a state owned Transport Corporation having its headquarters at Villupuram. In this Writ Petition, they have come forward to challenge the award passed by the first respondent - I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.349 of 2000 dated 14.7.2006. By the aforesaid award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent/workman without backwages, but with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. 2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 02.03.2007. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay. Subsequently, the workman, after a period of three and a half years, filed M.P.No.2 of 2010 seeking for last drawn wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. That request of the petitioner was ordered by this Court and the petitioner Corporation was directed to pay the last drawn wages from the date of the Writ Petition till the disposal of the Writ Petition. The application for vacating the interim order filed by the second respondent was dismissed on 02.08.2011. On being directed to file the enquiry proceedings, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a copy of the enquiry proceedings by way of an additional typed set. 3. It is seen from the records that the second respondent, who was employed as a conductor with effect from 22.5.1982, was issued with a charge memo on 21.8.1995 and was placed under suspension. The suspension was subsequently revoked on 23.11.1995. Not satisfied with the explanation offered, enquiry was ordered to be conducted. The Enquiry Officer by his report dated 30.10.1995 found the petitioner guilty. Based upon the same, second show cause notice dated 4.11.1995 was given to him. The second respondent gave a reply dated 20.11.1995. Considering the past record and the nature of misconduct, he was dismissed from service by order dated 11.3.1996. 4. The second respondent did not raise any dispute within a reasonable time and after a period of two and a half years, he raised a dispute. The Conciliation Officer, as he could not bring about mediation, gave a failure report. On the strength of the failure report, the second respondent filed a claim statement before the first respondent - Labour Court. 5. The said claim was registered as I.D.No.349 of 2000 and a notice was ordered to the petitioner - Corporation. The petitioner -Corporation filed a counter statement dated nil (November, 2000). On the strength of the failure report, the second respondent filed a claim statement before the first respondent - Labour Court. 5. The said claim was registered as I.D.No.349 of 2000 and a notice was ordered to the petitioner - Corporation. The petitioner -Corporation filed a counter statement dated nil (November, 2000). In the counter statement, a stand was taken that the enquiry conducted against the second respondent was in accordance with the principles of natural justice and considering his past service, which was referred to in the second show cause notice, the second respondent was dismissed from service. It was also stated that if he is reinstated, it will bring a bad reputation to the Corporation. 6. Before the Labour Court, the second respondent himself was examined himself as W.W.1 and on his side, eight documents were filed and marked as Exs.W.1 to W.8. On the side of the petitioner - Corporation, one I.S.Thiagarajan was examined as M.W.1 and on their side, ten documents were filed and marked as M.1 to M.10. The Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted against the second respondent was fair and proper, but on the question of the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer, the Labour Court found that the dismissal was disproportionate and though the previous record showed some instances of misconduct, considering the fact that the second respondent has put in 12 years of service, the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate. The Labour Court also held that since the workman had raised a dispute after three and a half years, he was not eligible for wages for the said period of non-employment. Challenging the award, the Writ Petition came to be filed. 7. It is rather unfortunate that the Labour Court, though was furnished with the copy of the enquiry proceedings, did not even record the nature of misconduct, the defence taken by the workman and as to how the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer was not in the light of the evidence let in. Therefore, this Court must forced to look into the enquiry proceedings as if it is a trial Court. 8. Before the Domestic Enquiry Officer, on behalf of the Management, the Traffic Inspector Selvaraj, Headquarters Kancheepuram appeared as first witness. Therefore, this Court must forced to look into the enquiry proceedings as if it is a trial Court. 8. Before the Domestic Enquiry Officer, on behalf of the Management, the Traffic Inspector Selvaraj, Headquarters Kancheepuram appeared as first witness. In his evidence, he had stated that when the bus in which the second respondent was working as conductor was proceeding in route No.T.11, it was checked at Nerumbur, which is 14th stage. At that time, the second respondent had filled up the payment stage in the trip sheet. It was found that four tickets, which were carrying on by the passengers, were not punched by him. Therefore, it was presumed that unpunched tickets were given so that it could be reused in the next trip. Therefore, it was contended that the second respondent was acting under dishonest intention of issuing unpunched tickets and therefore, a report was given to the Corporation. The workman gave his statement before the Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the statement, he was examined by the Management. The defence of the workman was that at the time when the bus was checked, it was 6.50 p.m. in the evening and some of the lights inside the bus were not burning. Therefore, wherever there were proper lighting, the tickets were punched. It may so happen that in some cases where the tickets were not punched, it is due to the fact that in particular seat, the light was not bright enough to punch those small tickets and was no dishonest intention on his part in not punching those tickets. In the cross examination, there is no attempt made to show that there was proper lighting through out the bus. On the other hand, only a suggestion was put that the lights were bright enough and that the second respondent was lying, for which, the workman emphatically denied the said suggestion. 9. Ifit is seen in that context, it could be certainly held that the proper explanation given by the second respondent was not considered by the Management and that they simply went in by the assertion made by the Traffic Inspector. The Enquiry Officer found that the unpunched ticket, which was already sold was retained by the second respondent. This was based upon the statement given by the Traffic Inspector. He also recorded that Rs.1.05p was kept in excess. The Enquiry Officer found that the unpunched ticket, which was already sold was retained by the second respondent. This was based upon the statement given by the Traffic Inspector. He also recorded that Rs.1.05p was kept in excess. It is in that view of the matter, he found that the charges were proved. But, however, the workman, in the cross examination of the Management witness, answered that under the relevant standing orders, keeping Rs.20/- in excess or shortage cannot be considered to be a misconduct and the witness on behalf of the Management agreed with the said suggestion and he merely stated that what was found in his check report was only factual report and he is not concerned with whether it would be a misconduct under the Standing Order or not. When these facts were brought to the notice of the Labour Court, the Labour Court did not even take care to consider the enquiry proceedings. 10. Considering the overall case, it is found that the evidence let in against the second respondent was very scanty and not to the point. The explanation offered by the second respondent with reference to the poor lighting was not substantially denied and no attempt was made to prove that the second respondent was making false statement. Therefore, the explanation offered by the second respondent is a plausible explanation. The other point about having excess amount, as rightly argued by the second respondent, the Standing Order itself takes care to hold that keeping Rs.20/- either in excess or shortage is not a mis conduct, the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court cannot be faulted with. The Labour Court was also right in depriving the backwages because of the delayed raising of dispute by the second respondent. 11. In view of the above, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned award of the Labour Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the petitioner -Corporation is hereby directed to comply with the award of the Labour Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.