JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis on merits. 2. The present writ appeal is filed against the order dated 31.05.2011 made in W.P.No.82173/2009 by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order of the Labour Court reinstating the present appellant. 3. The present appellant was appointed as a Conductor by the respondent-Corporation in the year 1992 and has been rendering service honestly and sincerely to the satisfaction of the Management. It is alleged that on 25.08.2001 the workman while conducting a bus plying on route Maski to Mudagal, the bus was subjected to check at Antargangi and the checking officials found that the appellant has failed to issue tickets to 8 passengers despite collecting fare amount of Rs.4/- each and who were travelling from stage No.9 Maski to stage No.7 Mudgal. After holding departmental enquiry as contemplated he was dismissed from service. The Labour Court as per order dated 23.11.2007 held that departmental enquiry against the first party is not fair and proper. 4. After considering both oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court by the judgment and award dated 15.10.2008 allowed the claim petition filed under Section 10(4)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the impugned dismissal order passed by the respondent-Corporation dated 04.07.2005 was set aside and directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service but without back wages within two months from the date of award coming into force on its publication. That was the subject matter of writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.82173/2009. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties, by the impugned order dated 31.05.2011 allowed the writ petition holding that no sympathy should be shown to the said delinquent workman with the relief of reinstatement in the service. Therefore, allowed the writ petition reinstatement order passed by the Labour Court is set aside. Hence, the present appeal is filed. 5. Sri P. Vilaskumar, learned counsel for the workman vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent – Management by setting aside the reinstatement awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous, contrary to the material on record. Hence, the present appeal is filed. 5. Sri P. Vilaskumar, learned counsel for the workman vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent – Management by setting aside the reinstatement awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous, contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that there has been pendency of industrial dispute between the KSRTC staff and Workers Federation and Five Transport Corporations including the respondent before the Industrial Tribunal Bengaluru in I.D.No.148/2005 was also not considered by the learned Single Judge. He would further contend that when learned Single Judge relied upon enquiry report and set aside the reinstatement award passed by the Labour Court. When the Labour Court set aside the dismissal order, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the reinstatement award made by the Tribunal. 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 698 . Therefore, he sought to allow the writ appeal. 7. Per contra, Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation sought to justify the impugned order. He would contend that Checking Staff has found that though the appellant has collected fare amount from eight passengers who were all in one group, he has failed to issue tickets and he has also failed to use the punching machine. The act of workman amounts to pilferage of the amount of Corporation. The workman is also having past history default cases. Therefore, the workman does not deserve any sympathy. Therefore, he sought to justify the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. We given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 9. It is an undisputed fact that that the appellant has joined the respondent-Corporation as Conductor in the year 1992 and on 25.08.2001 the appellant while conducting the bus plying on route Maski to Mudgal, the bus was subjected to check and the checking officials found that the appellant has failed to issue tickets to eight passengers despite collecting fare amount of Rs.4/- each. After holding departmental enquiry, the respondent by the order dated 04.07.2005 dismissed the appellant from service. After holding departmental enquiry, the respondent by the order dated 04.07.2005 dismissed the appellant from service. That was the subject matter of KID No.152/2005 filed by the appellant/workman under Section 10(4)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court treated issue No.1 as preliminary issue and gave opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence on the preliminary issue and passed an order on 23.11.2007 holding that Disciplinary Enquiry conducted was not fair and proper and answered preliminary issue No.1 in the negative and set aside the Disciplinary Enquiry report and posted for evidence of the parties before the Labour Court. 10. The Management examined one Suresh Babu, the Assistant Traffic Inspector as MW.1. In support of his evidence, he examined and marked the documents at Exs.M1 to M7. The appellant-workman by filing his affidavit has given his evidence as WW.1 and in support of his evidence, he has not got marked any documents. On perusal of the oral evidence of MW.1 including contents of Exs.M1 to M7 and taking into consideration evidence of MW.1, the Labour Court recorded a finding that there are no reasons to disbelieve that on that day the workman has not issued tickets to eight passengers despite collecting fare amount and not used the punching machine. Apart from that, there is allegation against the workman that he is having past history of default cases. It is also observed that since the workman is rendering his services with the Corporation from many years, the allegation of 18 past history default cases is not more. The Labour Court invoking the provisions of Section 10(4)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, set aside the order of dismissal and directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the workman into services with continuity of service but without backwages within two months. 11. It is also not in dispute that the present appellant has not filed any writ petition before this Court against the denial of backwages except to defend the case for reinstatement. The learned Single Judge proceeded to set aside the reinstatement on the basis of the enquiry report and evidence produced holding that the charge is proved. It is also not in dispute that the Labour Court by the order dated 23.11.2007 on preliminary issue recorded a finding that disciplinary enquiry conducted by the respondent is not fair and proper. The learned Single Judge proceeded to set aside the reinstatement on the basis of the enquiry report and evidence produced holding that the charge is proved. It is also not in dispute that the Labour Court by the order dated 23.11.2007 on preliminary issue recorded a finding that disciplinary enquiry conducted by the respondent is not fair and proper. When the said order passed by the Labour Court has reached finality, it is not open for the learned Single Judge to rely upon the enquiry report again and to hold that charge of misconduct is proved. Admittedly, the said order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Labour Court holding that disciplinary enquiry initiated is not fair and proper was not challenged by the management. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the reinstatement made by the Labour Court. 12. The material on record clearly depicts that though allegation is made to the effect that the checking officials found that the appellant has not issued tickets to eight passengers despite collecting fare amount, the fact remains that the disciplinary enquiry held not fair and proper. It is also not in dispute that the material on record would indicate that the earlier charges made against the workman was also not proved, therefore, the Labour Court was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal dated 04.07.2005 directing the respondent to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service and without backwages. The order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the reinstatement without setting aside the dismissal order shocks our judicial conscious. The learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order of reinstatement. Even if interfered, it ought to have imposed certain minor penalty, the same has not been done. Our view is fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. B.C. Chaturvedi reported in (1995) 6 SCC 750. 13. The material on record clearly depicts that the fact that the appellant has failed to issue tickets to eight passengers despite collecting fare amount of Rs.4/- each is proved by the evidence adduced before the Labour Court. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly denied backwages to the appellant/workman. 14. 13. The material on record clearly depicts that the fact that the appellant has failed to issue tickets to eight passengers despite collecting fare amount of Rs.4/- each is proved by the evidence adduced before the Labour Court. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly denied backwages to the appellant/workman. 14. Taking into consideration the material on record and in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that if penalty of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect for a period of two years is imposed on the appellant, it would meet the ends of justice. 15. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.82173/2009 is hereby modified. The appellant is imposed with penalty of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect for two years. The appellant is not entitled to continuity of service for the delayed period of 1941 days in filing the present appeal. The respondent shall reinstate the appellant into service within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and he is entitled to the wages attached to the post after reinstatement and he is not entitled to any backwages as denial of backwages before the Labour Court was not at all challenged by the appellant before this Court. Ordered accordingly.