ORDER : D. Hari Paranthaman, J. 1. The writ petitioner is the Transport Corporation. The second respondent was working as Conductor. He was on duty on 24.04.1997 in the bus bearing registration No. TN 29-N-0859 running between Hosur and Tiruvannamalai. On 24.04.1997, when the bus was proceeding from Hosur to Tiruvannamalai, the bus was checked by the checking officials. The checking officials found that there was overwriting by the second respondent workman in four luggage tickets. Based on the same, a charge memo was issued to the second respondent workman. The second respondent workman gave his explanation denying the charges. He submitted that he correctly wrote in the invoice about the amount which he received from the passengers for the luggage tickets. An enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges. Based on such finding, the second respondent workman was dismissed from service by an order dated 06.11.1997. The second respondent workman took up his non-employment before the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 84/2000. Before the first respondent Labour Court, both parties filed pleadings. The second respondent workman raised a preliminary' issue that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the enquiry was not conducted fairly. Thereafter, the matter was posted for producing evidence of the writ petitioner Management. 2. Accordingly, one checking official was examined and 12 documents were marked as Exs. M1 to M12 on the side of the Management. On the side of the second respondent workman, the workman got examined himself as a witness. 3. After hearing both sides, the Labour Court passed an award dated 21.04.2005 in I.D. No. 84/2000 holding that though there were corrections in the tickets, the workman has correctly written in the invoice and therefore, no question of misappropriation would arise. The Labour Court also found that though the second respondent workman received some punishment on the earlier occasions, he was not punished for any misappropriation. The Labour Court found that the second respondent workman was guilty of overwriting the tickets. 4. In those circumstances, though the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner did not prove that there was misappropriation of any amount, the Labour Court deprived back wages and directed only reinstatement with continuity of service. 5. The Labour Court found that the second respondent workman was guilty of overwriting the tickets. 4. In those circumstances, though the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner did not prove that there was misappropriation of any amount, the Labour Court deprived back wages and directed only reinstatement with continuity of service. 5. Challenging the award dated 21.04.2005 in I.D. No. 84/2000 of the first respondent Labour Court, the writ petitioner Management has filed this writ petition. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner Management has vehemently contended that having found that there were corrections in the tickets, the Labour Court was not correct in ordering reinstatement. According to him, the petitioner Management has lost confidence in the service of the second respondent workman, since the workman is involved in cash transactions, wherein he collects money from 100s' of passengers and hence, reinstatement could not have been ordered by the Labour Court. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent workman has submitted that the Labour Court gave a categorical finding that the workman has recorded correctly in the invoice. The Labour Court also recorded that there was no misappropriation of amount. In fact, he was punished excessively by the Labour Court in depriving entire back-wages for making some corrections, which could occur in the running bus. The learned counsel for the workman has also submitted that during the check up, the checking officials failed to enquire the concerned passengers to verify as to what was the amount given by them for the tickets that were issued to them. In the absence of the same, the Conductor could not be accused of misappropriation of amount. 9. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10. It is true that the Labour Court recorded a finding that there was overwriting in the tickets. But the Labour Court found on facts that there was no overwriting or corrections in the invoice. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the award of the Labour Court holding that misappropriation was not proved against the workman. 10. It is true that the Labour Court recorded a finding that there was overwriting in the tickets. But the Labour Court found on facts that there was no overwriting or corrections in the invoice. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the award of the Labour Court holding that misappropriation was not proved against the workman. Further, the Labour Court has categorically held that the invoice was correctly written and it was the duty of the checking officials to enquire the concerned passengers, as to what amount paid by them for the tickets, to verify as to whether the Conductor committed any misappropriation. But the checking officials utterly failed in this aspect. It was not the case of the petitioner Management that the second respondent workman collected higher amount from the passengers, but issued luggage tickets for lesser amount. All the tickets are luggage tickets. Moreover, evidence was taken before the Labour Court, after the enquiry was set aside. The Labour Court, based on the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the Management failed to prove that the workman involved in misappropriation of amount. However, the Labour Court thought of depriving back wages for making some corrections in the tickets. The second respondent workman has not chosen to challenge the said findings and the deprival of back wages. 11. In the said circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the award of the Labour Court, particularly taking into account the fact that evidence was let in afresh before the Labour Court and the Labour Court had an occasion to consider the entire material. 12. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner Management has heavily relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T. Mane, (2005) 3 SCC 254 . In that case, during the check, it was found that the Conductor had in possession of excess amount of Rs. 93/- over and about the amount equivalent to the tickets issued by him. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with 75% back wages on the ground that the passengers were not examined. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench confirmed the award of the Labour Court. 93/- over and about the amount equivalent to the tickets issued by him. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with 75% back wages on the ground that the passengers were not examined. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench confirmed the award of the Labour Court. When the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court on facts of the case found that examination of passengers are not necessary, particularly when the workman did not dispute the excess amount of Rs. 93/- and he was not able to give any proper explanation for the same. 13. I am not able to appreciate the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner Management in this regard. In the present case on hand, it was not the case of the petitioner Management that there was excess amount. The only allegation is that there was overwriting in the tickets. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that though the workman was irresponsible in writing the tickets, misappropriation was not proved against him. Further, the Labour Court herein deprived entire back-wages, unlike the Labour Court in Karnataka, that awarded 75% of back wages besides reinstatement and the same was confirmed by a learned Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, but the Apex Court reversed the same. 14. Hence, in my view, the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. The facts of this case reveal that the checking officials should have enquired the passengers as to what was the amount that was paid for luggage tickets received by them, at the time of checking. I have not held that the passengers were not examined in the departmental enquiry. I have held that the checking officials failed to enquire or record a statement from the passengers as to the amount that was collected by the Conductor, since the same is relevant to determine the issue alleged against the workman. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner Management has relied on another judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 555 wherein the Labour Court upheld the order of dismissal of the workman. The allegation was that the Conductor collected amounts from 13 passengers, but did not issue tickets. In those circumstances, the Labour Court dismissed the industrial dispute. Suresh Chand Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 555 wherein the Labour Court upheld the order of dismissal of the workman. The allegation was that the Conductor collected amounts from 13 passengers, but did not issue tickets. In those circumstances, the Labour Court dismissed the industrial dispute. But the High Court interfered with the same forcing the Transport Corporation to approach the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there is no warrant for reversing the order of the Labour Court based on the findings on fact. In the said case, the High Court found that the charge was established, but still, interfered with the award and directed reinstatement. Since the High Court also found that the workman collected money from 13 passengers and did not issue tickets, the Supreme Court interfered with the order of the High Court. Hence, in my view, the said judgment also could not be applied to the present case on hand. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.