JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 02.03.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Hubli in Reference No.39/2004 at Annexure R to the petition. 2. The petitioner was working as a conductor in the respondent-Corporation. On the allegations that while he was on duty in the bus bearing No. MEF 2300 on 17/18.4.1993, when the bus was checked, it was found that he had not issued tickets to 13 passengers despite collecting the requisite fare of Rs. 2.25ps from each of them and had failed to close the entry in the way bill relating to stage-1. He was issued with the charge sheet, enquiry was held and on the charge being established, the punishment of dismissal was imposed. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same had raised a dispute which was referred to the Principal Labour Court, Hubli in Reference No.39/2004. 3. The Labour Court had framed three points for its consideration and in that regard, the first point being with regard to the fairness of the enquiry held against the petitioner, had arrived at the conclusion that the enquiry held was not fair and proper and was accordingly held in the negative. The management had thereafter tendered fresh evidence in the matter, while the workman had also tendered his evidence. The Labour Court after analyzing the evidence available before it has arrived at the conclusion that the charge as alleged against the petitioner is proved before the Labour Court and accordingly the reference has been rejected. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Labour Court was not justified in its approach in the circumstances where the petitioner had examined the passengers concerned and the passengers had admitted that the tickets had been issued to all of them. Hence the alleged charge that the ticket had not been issued would not be justified. It is his contention that the checking as made was before the bus had reached the next stage and in that light, way bill had not been closed and therefore that itself cannot be held against the petitioner to arrive at the conclusion that the tickets have not been issued. It is his contention that the checking as made was before the bus had reached the next stage and in that light, way bill had not been closed and therefore that itself cannot be held against the petitioner to arrive at the conclusion that the tickets have not been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner would in that regard seek to refer to the affidavit submitted by the passengers to contend in this regard. He therefore contends further that the conclusion as made by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation in her attempt to sustain the award passed by the Labour Court would refer to the evidence that had been tendered by the Management before the Labour Court and in that light would point out that the Labour Court after having referred to the fresh evidence that had been tendered before it has analyzed the same and has arrived at the conclusion that the evidence as tendered by the so called passengers cannot be relied on and therefore, the Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that the charge has been established. Hence, it is contended that the award does not call for interference. 6. In the light of the contentions put forth, a perusal of the award as passed by the Labour Court would disclose that the Labour Court has in the background of examining the evidence available before it has taken into consideration the nature of the charge that the petitioner had not issued tickets to 13 of the passengers after collecting the fare. The reason as stated before this Court which was also contended before the Labour Court to indicate that the way bill has not been closed is also referred by the Labour Court. In that regard, since the consideration which was required to be made by the Labour Court, as to whether the tickets have in fact been issued as contended by the petitioner has made a specific reference to the evidence more particularly, that of WW2 Sri Mahesh, who had stated that he purchased 10 tickets for himself and his group and that there were more than 70 commuters in the bus. 7. 7. While arriving at the conclusion in that back ground as to whether such statement made by the said witness is to be accepted, the Labour Court has referred to his cross-examination where he has pleaded his inability to name the ten persons on whose behalf he had purchased the tickets and whom he claimed were traveling with him that too when he claims that they were his close relatives. The Labour Court has also taken into consideration the explanation sought to be put forth that they were traveling as a group in respect of attending a function and in that regard has arrived at the conclusion that it could not be believed that at that point of the night, they would be travelling to attend such function. The Labour Court has in fact also referred to the document at Exh.W12 and has taken note of the fact that before the enquiry officer though summons was issued, no steps had been taken by the passengers to appear therein and the reason that they have presently appeared would make it doubtful whether the person examined as a passenger was the person who actually traveled. 8. In addition, the Labour Court has also referred to the evidence of the Management and documents at Exhs. M2, M21 M28 before arriving at its conclusion, that the charge alleged against the petitioner is proved. In such circumstance, when the Labour Court has referred to the evidence available on record, analyzed the same and has thereafter arrived at its conclusion and further when no perversity in the manner of consideration is pointed out, in the limited scope available to this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the award of the present nature would not call for interference. The petition accordingly being devoid of merits, stands disposed of.