Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a workman employed under the 2nd respondent Tamil Nadu State owned Transport Corporation having its Headquarters at Coimbatore. In this Writ Petition, he has come forward to challenge a portion of the award in I.D.No.181 OF 2002 denying backwages. In the said award, the Labour Court while granting reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service denied the backwages. 2. Subsequent to the award, it transpires that the petitioner was reinstated in service. The petitioner has not explained as to why he has never reserved his right to file a Writ Petition challenging that portion of the award and also as to why he took more than 1-1/2 years to approach this Court with the present Writ Petition. 3. However, the Writ Petition was admitted on 20.4.2007. On notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 16.4.2010. Since the petitioner has not filed the entire documents available before the Labour Court, the Registry was directed to summon the original records. Accordingly, the original records also have been summoned and perused by this Court. 4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner while employed as a Conductor by the 2nd respondent Corporation, on 28.2.2001 was serving on the route Puzhavadi-Udumalai, when the bus was checked at the spot near Thoongavi, it was found that the passenger who was travelling from Motrathi to Indra Nagar was not having any ticket and when questioned, he stated that he already paid Rs.2.25 for the ticket but the Conductor did not issue the ticket. Therefore, the petitioner was charge sheeted in terms of the Certified Standing Order No.14(d) and 14(a)(b). The defence taken by the workman was that since that passenger was not well, he went off to sleep on the shoulder of the nearby co-passenger and he did not purchase the ticket. He said that he gave the money to the nearby passenger, who did not purchase them. Therefore, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in not issuing the ticket and he also denied the allegation that he has taken the money but did not issue the ticket. Notwithstanding his explanation, on the basis of the domestic enquiry, the management dismissed him from service by an order dated 12.9.2001. 5. Therefore, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in not issuing the ticket and he also denied the allegation that he has taken the money but did not issue the ticket. Notwithstanding his explanation, on the basis of the domestic enquiry, the management dismissed him from service by an order dated 12.9.2001. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Government Labour Officer, Coimbatore. The said Officer after notice to the 2nd respondent gave a failure report dated 2.4.2002. On the strength of the failure report he filed a claim statement before the Labour Court. The said dispute was registered as I.D.No.181 of 2002 and notice was issued to the 2nd respondent. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a counter statement dated 29.8.2003. Before the Labour Court, on the side of the workman, four documents were filed and marked as Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.4. On the side of the management, enquiry proceedings were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.17. 7. The Labour Court held that the defence pleaded by the workman was not considered properly and it is a plausible explanation that the passenger had gone to sleep without buying ticket and thereafter when he was questioned by the Checking Inspector, he gave a different answer, which is not correct. But, the Labour Court held that at the relevant time, there were only 12 passengers. Therefore, nothing prevented the petitioner to check the invoice and to find out whether all the passengers in the bus were having tickets and the Labour Court held that it was not a case of crowded bus where the Conductor was unable to check how many of them had not purchased ticket. Therefore, while holding that it was not a case a 'fair collected but no ticket issued (FCN) but it is a case where a lack of vigil on the part of the Conductor, who permitted the passenger to travel without ticket. Under the said circumstances, the Labour Court held that it is not a case fit for dismissing the workman and therefore, in the exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court interfered with the penalty, but at the same time for his lack of vigil, it deprived the backwages of the workman. Under the said circumstances, the Labour Court held that it is not a case fit for dismissing the workman and therefore, in the exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court interfered with the penalty, but at the same time for his lack of vigil, it deprived the backwages of the workman. While the management did not go on appeal, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition that too after a period of 1-1/2 years after accepting the relief of reinstatement from the 2nd respondent Corporation. 8. Though the question of estoppel will not arise in such cases, but at the same time the finding rendered by the Labour Court cannot be found fault with and for the proved misconduct, it is open to the Labour Court to give appropriate penalty. 9. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, G.S.R.T.C vs. Kadarbhai J.Suthar reported in 2007 (1) LLJ 1046 to contend that it is not automatic to grant the wages in case the Labour Court direct reinstatement. In paragraph 8, it is stated as follows: "8. Admittedly, the Labour Court had taken note of the previous acts of misconduct by the workman while denying the backwages. That aspect was completely lost sight of by the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench. Merely because the Corporation did not challenge the order of reinstatement that does not lead to a conclusion that it accepted any illegality in the departmental proceedings. As a matter of fact, the Labour Court clearly noted that the workman admitted the legality and propriety of the inquiry held against him." 10. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution is not inclined to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court. Hence, there is no case made out. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.