JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 21-8-1996 (published on 21-1-1997), passed by Labour Court Dehradun, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that Shiv Kumar was posted as conductor in U.P.S.R.T.C. On 6-11-1984 he was conductor on Bus No. 9967 and the Bus was being plied on Majra-Dehradun route. During checking out of 25 passengers travelling in the Bus, 10 passengers were found travelling without ticket and out of these 10 passengers, amount of tickets from 8 passengers were already taken by the conductor. Further on 31-10-84 Shiv Kumar was conductor in Bus No. 5914 on Gularghati-Dehradun route and on checking one passenger was found travelling without ticket. Sri R.S. Negi, Assistant Regional Manager conducted inquiry against Sri Shiv Kumar and found the charges proved against him and the workman/conductor and ordr dated 19-3-1985 was passed by Assistant Regional Manager (Hill) for removal of Shiv Kumar from service. Thereafter the workman raised industrial dispute and the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court. 3. Before the labour Court the case was registered as Industrial Dispute No. 48/996. 4. Both the parties filed their reply before the Labour Court and adduced evidence in support of their case. The learned Labour Court after considering the evidence of parties, came to the conclusion that the order dated 19-3-1985, of removal of the conductor/workman from service is a severe punishment and is against the law and in place of his removal from service, order was passed to stop two annual increment of the workman, with no future effect and the workman be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. Rs. 500/-were also awarded as cost of litigation. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, the employer/U.P.S.R.T.C. has filed this writ petition. 6. Rs. 500/-were also awarded as cost of litigation. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, the employer/U.P.S.R.T.C. has filed this writ petition. 6. The impugned award has been challenged on the ground that the passengers were found travelling the Bus without ticket and the conductor/workman had realized the amount of tickets from eight passengers, and the act on the part of the workman was serious misconduct and the workman is liable for major punishment but the learned Labour Court has committed error in taking lenient view by awarding only stoppage of two increments to the workman. The award of 50% backwages is also not justified. 7. The respondent workman filed counter affidavit and denied the contents of the writ petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 9. By perusal of impugned award it transpires that the Labour Court has recorded a finding on the basis of evidence of parties, that no evidence was adduced to prove this fact that the workman/conductor had realized the price of the tickets from the passengers and the intention of the workman to usurp the money was also not proved and there was only negligence on the part of the conductor. 10. I do not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award. 11. Record reveals that the coductor/workman Shiv Kumar has died. Since there was stay order passed in the writ petition, Shiv Kumar could not be reinstated in service and after his death during the pendecy of the writ petition, there arise no question of his reinstatement in service, therefore, the order for reinstatement in service passed by Labour Court in the impugned award came to an end. 12. So far as the back wages of 50% awarded by the learned Labour Court is concerned, I find that the view taken by the Labour Court is perfectly justified. Since the workman Shiv Kumar has died, the respondents 3/1 to 3/3 his legal heirs are entitled to get the same from the petitioner as has been awarded by the learned Labour Court. 13. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 14. The interim order dated 28-4-1997, passed by this Court is vacated.