( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the KSRTC being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7th April, 2000 in W. P. No. 12198 of 2000. In the above writ petition, the Corporation assailed the validity of the award of the Labour Court, Gulbarga, dated 1st March, 1999 is KID No. 471 of 1998 by which award the Labour Court had directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service and with full back wages.

( 2 ) THE respondent while serving in the establishment of the second appellant as conductor a charge memo dated 7-4-1995 was issued to him alleging that on 4-4-1995 while conducting the bus in question he failed to issue tickets of denomination of Rs. 2. 25 to a group of seven passengers despite collection of fares from them, with a mala fide intention to misappropriate the revenue of the Corporation. It was also alleged that in furtherance of that motive the workman had closed the waybill with reference to stage No. 9 i. e. , Koutal. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the delinquent workman conducted a regular enquiry against the workman and finding him guilty of the charge dismissed him. That led to the institution of industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Gulbarga. The Labour Court has opined that the charge of pilferage could have been established by the disciplinary authority only by 4 ways, namely, " (a) By examining the person who had paid cash with the workman but to whom the said workman had not issued valid tickets, (b) By the admission of the workman that he had collected the amount, (c) By examining the persons who had noticed the act of the passengers paying fare amount to the workman and the reaction of the workman in not issuing the tickets to them, and (d) By counting the cash to show that the workman had excess cash than the sale proceeds and declared cash" and since the charge was not established by any of those methods, there is no substance in the allegation that the delinquent workman misappropriated the revenue of the corporation despite the collection of the fares from seven passengers. So opining the Labour Court granted the relief to the workman.

( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge did not find any flaw in the award of the labour Court and has opined that the discretion exercised by the Labour court under Section 11-A of the Act is just and sound. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

( 4 ) WE have heard Smt. Renuka, learned Standing Counsel for the corporation and perused the award passed by the Labour Court and the order of the learned Single Judge. It is seen that the passengers' statements recorded by the checking officials were produced in the domestic enquiry as well as before the Labour Court. As per the statements, though the delinquent workman collected fares from seven passengers, he did not account the same in the waybill. It was also seen that the waybill was also closed. Simply because the passengers whose statements are recorded by the checking officials in the course of check are not examined in the domestic enquiry, it cannot be said that the evidentiary value of those statements is lost. The law is otherwise. In State of haryana and Another v Rattan Singh, the Supreme Court held:"4. It is well-settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text-books, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by Counsels on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is