JUDGMENT : BELLUNKE A.S., J. Though there is a delay of 155 days in filing the appeal, we have, nevertheless heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits. 2. The legality and correctness of order dated 26.03.2018 passed in W.P.No.64319/2010 (L-KSRTC) is questioned in this appeal. 3. The respondent-workman was working as a conductor under the appellant-Management. On 22.08.1996 on the route from Ilkal to Miraj, the bus was checked at stage No.41, at a place called Kagwad. It was found that, there were 17+0+0 passengers and that three passengers were traveling from Banahatti to Miraj without a ticket. On the said misallegation against the workman, an enquiry was conducted by the Disciplinary Authority, by following the procedure and after giving an opportunity to the respondent. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 21.05.2002, dismissing the respondent-workman from the service. 4. The respondent-workman raised an Industrial Dispute by filing a claim petition under Section 10(4)(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Bijapur in KID No.24/2002. 5. The appellant-Management contested the said petition by filing objections. It was contended that respondent-workman was involved in three cases and he was not having good track record in his career. Therefore, the Management sought to justify the order of dismissal before the Labour Court. 6. The Labour Court held trial of the case and found that the domestic enquiry held by the Management was not fair and proper. The Management was given an opportunity to prove the misconduct of the respondent-workman. The Labour Court also held that the Management had not proved the misconduct of the workman in accordance with law. Consequently, the Labour Court set aside the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the appellant-Management. However, the Labour Court ordered for payment of salary from the date of dismissal till the date of retirement of the respondent-workman. 7. The Management Corporation aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, filed writ petition No.64319/2010 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after going through the entire material on record found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition as being devoid of merits. The said order has been challenged by the appellant-Management on several grounds. 8. The learned Single Judge after going through the entire material on record found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition as being devoid of merits. The said order has been challenged by the appellant-Management on several grounds. 8. Appellant has prayed to set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and also the Labour Court and grant such other reliefs to which the appellant is entitled to. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant strongly urged before us that the domestic enquiry held was fair and proper. There was sufficient material before the Labour Court, which proved the misconduct on the part of the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman had caused wrongful loss to the Management by not issuing tickets to three passengers, who were traveling from Banahatti to Miraj. As a conductor of the bus, he was supposed to issue tickets. The workman failed in his duties. He was also involved in three such cases even earlier to the case on hand. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority conducted the enquiry by following due procedure and after giving an opportunity passed an order on 21.05.2002 dismissing the respondent-workman from the service. 10. We have gone through the impugned order and the reasons stated by the learned Single Judge. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned Labour Court in KID No.24/2002. MW-2 is the witness, who was examined by the Management. He has stated that the respondent-workman had not issued tickets to three passengers. The said witness was not tendered for cross examination before the Labour Court, inspite of sufficient opportunity. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly rejected that evidence. It was also found that after giving sufficient opportunity MW2 was not tendered for cross-examine as a witness in the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court has also found that the workman had attained age of 58 years and there was no possibility of him being re-appointed. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and passed the order holding that the respondent-workman is entitled for salary from the date of dismissal till the date of retirement. It has been further held that respondent-workman was not entitled for any continuity of service and for any other benefits. It has been further held that respondent-workman was not entitled for any continuity of service and for any other benefits. 11. The learned Single Judge has meticulously gone through the records. It was found that the departmental enquiry conducted by the appellant-Management was held to be not fair and proper, by answering preliminary issue No.1 on 24.05.2006 by the learned Labour Court. It is also found that the said order was logical and it was not subjected to any challenge by the petitioner therein. An opportunity was given to the Management to prove misconduct of the respondent-workman. The evidence stated by the MW1-Enquiry Officer, is only about how he conducted enquiry and regarding marking of documents as per M1 to M28. The main witness ie. MW2 who had detected the incident of misconduct, was not subjected to cross examination. Therefore, virtually, chief examination of MW2 was expunged and not available for appreciation by the Labour Court. 12. The respondent-workman has not challenged the order of the Labour Court. Therefore, on consideration of the materials available and also the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge, we find that there is no illegality or incorrectness in the order based by the learned Single Judge. The order passed is based on sound reasoning, material facts and evidence available on record. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of any merit. 13. In view of the above discussion, we held that the appeal is devoid of any merit. Consequently, all pending applications also stand dismissed.