ORDER 1. Instant writ petition has been remanded for hearing afresh by the order dt.22/07/2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1482/2012 with the following directions:- “In the result, the appeal deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petition afresh, keeping all the questions open including the question with regard to proportionality of the quantum of punishment.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. The award dated 25/07/2011 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Alwar whereby reference has been answered against the petitioner-conductor has been assailed on the ground of perversity and misreading of evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the statement made by the driver of the bus recorded before Enquiry Officer wherein he supported version of the petitionerconductor that there were 10 to 15 boys sitting on the rooftop of the bus and were not ready to purchase ticket due to which the vehicle was stopped by the conductor and he was demanding full fare. There is another statement of one Moti Lal Sharma who was travelling the bus and had produced his Ticket No.41143141 which he had purchased during the travelling in the bus and he has categorically supported version of the petitioner during the course of enquiry and has pointed out that the said boys, who appeared to be students, had refused to pay fare for the tickets and were travelling on the rooftop and had also started quarreling with the conductor. While the enquiry was held to be fair in proceedings by the Labour Court under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947, in the present reference made under Section 10-A of the Act of 1947, the learned Tribunal, while noticing the statement of the driver and the said Moti Lal Sharma, one of the passengers travelling in the said bus on the fateful day, has read the evidence in different perspective. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the previous record, as mentioned in the impugned award, was found to be wrongful and affidavit in this regard was placed before the Division Bench about the previous record of the petitioner to show that his earlier removal was simplicitor and not on account of any delinquency. 6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal and submits that enquiry was conducted and the learned Tribunal could not have gone beyond the findings of the enquiry officer once he had already approved the enquiry to be fair in the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. 7. Having gone through the record and the impugned award dated 25/07/2011as well as the order passed by the Division Bench dt.22/07/2016, this Court finds that there is an apparent perversity in the impugned award dated 25/07/2011 and the evidence of the driver as well as the passenger travelling in the bus has been rejected by the Tribunal only on the basis of a doubt raised regarding the boys travelling on the rooftop of the bus being students or not. The fact remains that they were those passengers who were travelling without ticket and it does not matter whether they were students or not and on that count, the petitioner cannot be said to be guilty of allowing passengers to travel in the bus without ticket. Even otherwise, the passengers, who were tranvelling on the rooftop of the bus, cannot be said to be the passengers travelling legally inside the bus and a conductor cannot be held guilty for such illegal act on behalf of the person who travel unauthorizely on rooftop. On the said allegation, a conductor could not have been dismissed from service and the order of removal, therefore, ought to have been set aside and the reference ought to have been answered in his favour. On the said allegation, a conductor could not have been dismissed from service and the order of removal, therefore, ought to have been set aside and the reference ought to have been answered in his favour. The judgments, quoted by the learned Tribunal have also been considered and examined by the Division Bench and it has been already held that when the proceedings under Section 10-A of the Act of 1947 are referred, merely because there is a verdict under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947, the same would not influence the proceedings which are independent and are based on evidence which is recorded during the course of enquiry as well as before the Court. 8. In view of the above findings, the impugned award dated 25/07/2011 is set aside. 9. The question, now relates to the relief which can be granted to the petitioner. In this regard, this Court finds that the order of dismissal was passed on 10/06/1993 and 24 years have passed by now during pendency of this case. It is settled law that none of the parties should be made to suffer on account of pendency of the case before this Court and considering the same, while directing the petitioner to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and benefits thereto, this Court directs that the pay fixation etc. shall be notional and if the petitioner has attained superannuation during the period, the fixation shall be treated as actual for the purpose of release of pension and retiral benefits which will be made actually to him which includes payment of gratuity also on the basis of last pay which comes on notional fixation of pay and allowances. The compliance of this order be made by the respondents within a period of three months from today. 10. The writ petition stands allowed with directions/observations as indicated above.