ORDER : Vineet Kothari, J. The petitioner-Employer North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (for short, NEKRTC) has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order and award of the Labour Court, Bijapur allowing the claim Case No.KID 10/2014 Maheboobsab v. Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Bijapur under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and setting aside his dismissal order dated 28.8.2014 directing the reinstatement of the claimant-petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts leading to the present writ petition, as noticed by the learned Labour Court below are, that the petitioner, while working as a Conductor of Bus bearing No.F 1951 on 31.5.2013, failed to collect due fare of Rs. 179/- from a child passenger travelling with his parents from Poona to Bijapur and due fare of Rs. 179/- and upon checking done by the Checking Staff, they found that the child was above 5 years of age and therefore, liable to travel only on a valid pay ticket and the Checking Staff collected the said fare amount along with penalty of Rs. 500/- from the parents of the child passenger and thereafter the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner-Conductor and after concluding the said inquiry, the dismissal order was passed against him on 28.8.2014 which was challenged by the said petitioner before the Labour Court and Labour Court allowed his application with the aforesaid directions. 3. The reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court in the impugned order are as follows: The scrutiny of the entire oral and documentary evidence clearly indicates that there are serious lapses on the part of Checking Officials, who have not collected proper evidence, such as statement of parents of said child, regarding the age. Under these circumstances, the version of the petitioner that the said child was aged less than 5 years needs to be accepted. Thus, the respondent has utterly failed to prove the allegation made against the petitioner and consequently, the respondent is justified in passing the impugned order of dismissal. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-NEKRTC Mr. Deepak Barad submitted that since the parents paid the due fare of Rs. 179/- along with the penalty of Rs. Thus, the respondent has utterly failed to prove the allegation made against the petitioner and consequently, the respondent is justified in passing the impugned order of dismissal. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-NEKRTC Mr. Deepak Barad submitted that since the parents paid the due fare of Rs. 179/- along with the penalty of Rs. 500/- to the Checking Staff, therefore, it should be assumed that the petitioner-conductor deliberately failed to collect the due fare from the child passenger and his parents for the said travel and therefore, the inquiry had rightly concluded and the findings submitted on 7.1.2014 against the present petitioner were unassailable and the dismissal order deserves to be upheld. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay M Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Conductor submits that no proof of age was produced on record by the prosecuting official nor even the statements of the child or that of the parents were recorded. He further submitted that there is no rule or regulation governing the service conditions of the petitioner conductor requiring him to ask the passengers to produce their date of birth proof and therefore, it was a matter of guess whether the child in question was below 5 years or over 5 years requiring him to buy the ticket or not. 6. A bona fide error could also occur in the matter and more over, even now or during inquiry, nothing about the age was firmly established and mere payment of fare and penalty by the parents of the child passenger does not amount to any delinquency or misconduct on the part of the workman and therefore, the impugned order of the Labour Court directing his reinstatement with all consequential benefits including back wages, is perfectly justified and does not require any interference by this Court at the instance of the petitioner NEKRTC. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record and the reasons assigned by the Labour Court. 8. This Court does not find any error or infirmity in the order of the Labour Court dated 18.4.2015. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record and the reasons assigned by the Labour Court. 8. This Court does not find any error or infirmity in the order of the Labour Court dated 18.4.2015. In the absence of any specific rule obligating or requiring the conductor of the bus concerned to insist upon the proof of date of birth of the child passengers, the conductor could not be expected to insist upon buying of ticket for a young child who appeared to him to be below 5 years. Since it was a matter of guess and the age of the child in question has not even been established later on to be much more than 5 years, a marginal difference of age on the basis of appearance of face of child could not result in any 'misconduct' on the part of the workman so as to invite disciplinary action against him. It was a matter of guess for the Checking Staff also to estimate the age of the said child in question over 5 years and realize the fare and penalty from the parents. Merely because the parents ended up paying the said fare of Rs. 179/- along with the fine of Rs. 500/- under coercion or otherwise, it could not result in any 'misconduct' on the part of the petitioner conductor. 9. The inquiry in question also appears to have held in a slipshod manner even without recording the statements of the parents of the child in question and securing the document regarding proof of date of birth of the said child passenger. Setting aside of the dismissal order on this ground, therefore, is perfectly justified and the Labour Court cannot be said to have committed any error in directing the reinstatement with continuity in service, including back wages. The present writ petition filed by the NEKRTC has, therefore, no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 10. This Court would also like to observe that such kind of frivolous disciplinary action against the staff of the public authority like the NEKRTC is likely to have a dampening effect on the morale and sense of belongingness to the organisation and the Controlling Disciplinary Authority should desist from initiating such uncalled for inquiry against their own staff members. 11. With the above, the writ petition of NEKRTC is dismissed. No order as to costs.