Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the Transport Corporation having Head Quarters at Chennai. In this writ petition, it has challenged the award passed by the second respondent-Labour Court at Chennai in I.D.No.670 of 2000, dated 4.7.2006. By the impugned award, the Labour Court set aside the dismissal of the workman and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits without backwages. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 11.7.2007. Pending writ petition, an interim order of stay was granted. 3. Today, when the matter came up, the counsel for the petitioner filed additional typed set of papers containing the enquiry proceedings marked before the Labour Court. 4. It is seen from the records that the first respondent-workman was working as a Conductor on a daily wage basis from the year 1995. On 28.11.1998, the first respondent-workman was on night duty in the bus from High Court to Poonamallee. The bus was checked up at Arumbakkam Stage and it was found that the first respondent-workman while issuing tickets did not punch the tickets properly and 16 tickets were issued with a small perforation only without making a proper punching. Therefore, it was presumed that the first respondent-workmen was likely to misuse the tickets in the subsequent trip. Secondly, when the bus reached the last stage when the cash bag of the first respondent-workman was checked, there was an excess cash of Rs.12.50. On the basis of this, the first respondent-workman was given a charge memo dated 3.12.1998. The charges levelled against the first respondent-workman was that not properly punching the tickets with an intention to re-use the said tickets and secondly he was having a sum of Rs.12.50 as excess of the collection. The first respondent-workman not only before the Checking Inspector, but also in his written explanation to the Branch Manager stated that when the bus was reaching N.S.K.Nagar, 8 passengers got into the bus and when he demanded them to purchase tickets, they were not purchasing the tickets and the bus was stopped and he had ultimately persuaded them to purchase the tickets and started the bus, by then, the Checking Inspector boarded the bus and he came to know that the said 8 passengers had not purchased the tickets initially and they were later given tickets and the serial number and stage of the tickets was wrongly mentioned in the trip sheet. 5. 5. With reference to excess amount in the cash bag, he stated that he realised excess only when he reached the stop and it may be due to the fact that certain passengers might not have collected their change, after alighting from the bus. He further stated that there is nothing to cheat the Transport Corporation, because it was a night shift, the perforation in the ticket may not be so visible. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry. One Shanmugam, the Branch Manager was examined on the side of the Corporation. The first respondent-workman gave his written statement. The Enquiry Officer held that the workman was guilty of misconduct. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was given on 10.5.1999 based upon the enquiry findings. The first respondent-workman gave his explanation on 22.5.1999. Not satisfied with the same, by an order dated 17.6.1999, he was dismissed from service. 6. The first respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chennai-108. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, who was conciliating between the parties stated that he could not put any mediation and gave his Failure Report on 18.5.2000. On the strength of the failure report, first respondent-workman filed a claim statement before the second respondent-Labour Court dated 14.11.2000. The Labour Court registered the dispute as I.D.No.670 of 2000 and issued notice to the management. 7. The petitioner-management filed a counter statement on 25.6.2001 before the Labour Court. On the side of the workman, he was examined himself as W.W.1 and on the side of the management, one Shanmugam was examined as M.W.1. The management has also filed enquiry proceedings, which were marked as M1 to M10. The Labour Court found that there was no proper appreciation of evidence in the enquiry conducted against the workman. During the evidence before the Labour Court, the workman deposed that he belong to a trade union and demanded regularisation of temporary workers and also filed a writ petition on his behalf and on behalf of 26 others, which was pending in Writ Petition Nos.10546 and 15957 of 1996. Though writ petitions were allowed and the Corporation filed appeals and the matters were pending and an agreement was reached between the union and the workers and 26 workers were given regular employment, excepting the first respondent-workman, other 26 workers are in service. Though writ petitions were allowed and the Corporation filed appeals and the matters were pending and an agreement was reached between the union and the workers and 26 workers were given regular employment, excepting the first respondent-workman, other 26 workers are in service. The Labour Court took note of all these facts and found that the Standing Orders provide for certain amount if kept in the cash bag either in excess or in shortage will not amount to a misconduct and certainly for keeping Rs.12.50 excess in the cash bag cannot be said to be so grave, warranting dismissal of the workman and the said misconduct, the Labour Court is of the opinion that the said defence was taken by the workman right from the day one, viz., when the Checking Inspector questioned him, he gave the answer, which also found reflected in the Check Memo submitted by the Traffic Inspector and therefore, it is not the defence pleaded as an afterthought. The Labour Court also found that admittedly the tickets had certain perforation and therefore it cannot be said that it might be re-used subsequently. The defence taken by the workman was not properly considered by the Enquiry Officer and appreciated by the management. Therefore, the intention of the workman to retain those tickets for the purpose of re-using in the next trip, was an erroneous finding by the Enquiry Officer and in any event, the dismissal for the alleged misconduct was grossly disproportionate. Therefore, by exercising the power under Section 11-A, the Labour Court directed the management to reinstate the first respondent-workman with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits without back wages. 8. The contention raised by the petitioner-management in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the Labour Court had not properly examined the issue in correct perspective that the worker had intentionally punched the ticket without being visible and made a wrong entry in the traffic return. He had also admitted the charges before the enquiry officer and the enquiry report is fair and proper. The question of Labour Court finding the report of the Enquiry Officer erroneous do not arise. He had also admitted the charges before the enquiry officer and the enquiry report is fair and proper. The question of Labour Court finding the report of the Enquiry Officer erroneous do not arise. But however in this case, for the first charge, the management had relied upon the misconduct set out in the Model Standing Orders framed by the State Government in terms of MSO 17(a), which reads theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employers business or property. The Labour Court correctly framed the question as to how the said misconduct is attracted even if the charges is said to be proved. It is not a case where the tickets were not been punched and it was an invisible punching. The first respondent-workman in his explanation clearly stated that it was a night shift and there was already a trouble with eight passengers and thereby inadvertently he might not have punched properly and there was no intention to cheat the Corporation. 9. With reference to the excess cash, he has stated that certain passengers might not have collected their change at the time of alighting from the bus. In the normal course, the excess amount will have to be collected after the bus reached the depot, but in the present case, the Checking Inspector had got into the bus even before the bus reached the destination. Therefore, the Labour Courts finding that the report of the Enquiry Officer was erroneous and the defence pleaded by the workman was not properly appreciated cannot be found fault with. Even otherwise for the proved misconduct, the Labour Court had deprived the entire back wages payable to the workman. In the said circumstances, this Court is not interfering with the impugned award and the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the award also being confirmed, the petitioner-Corporation is directed to comply with the award, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.