( 1 ) THE appellant-Corporation has challenged the award passed by the labour Court at Hubli and also the order of the learned Single Judge in not interfering with that award.

( 2 ) THE respondent, though served with notice, remained absent and unrepresented. So, heard the learned Counsel for the Corporation only. It is submitted for the Corporation that though domestic enquiry conducted against the respondent was held as fair and proper, on some untenable grounds, the Tribunal wrongly held that the charge against the respondent was not proved, but the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the same and hence, interference by this Court is necessary. Perused the records carefully.

( 3 ) FACTS giving rise to this appeal are. The respondent, while working as conductor under the appellant-Corporation, was subjected to domestic enquiry on the charge that he had not issued tickets to 6 passengers travelling from Shimoga to Holalkere on 22-10-1988 despite collection of fare at Rs. 2. 50 from each. On proof of it, he was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority. He challenged it in appeal and thereafter by way of revision petition unsuccessfully. Hence, he raised an industrial dispute by filing an application under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court at Hubli, which held that domestic enquiry conducted was fair and proper, but charge was not proved and consequently, set aside the order of dismissal and directed to reinstate the respondent into service with 50% of back wages. Aggrieved by it, the Corporation filed writ petition, which came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Hence, this intra court appeal by the Corporation.

( 4 ) THE Labour Court, though held domestic enquiry as fair and proper, set aside the order of dismissal after holding that the charge levelled against the respondent as not proved. The said finding has been recorded by the Tribunal on the grounds that: (1) the Corporation failed to examine any of the passengers, who boarded the bus and paid fare to the respondent; (2) passengers' statement recorded in printed pro forma cannot be used as substantive evidence; (3) cash bag of the respondent was not checked; and (4) statement of checking official, not corroborated by checking cash bag, was of no help to establish the charge. The learned Single Judge agreed with the said finding recorded by the labour Court since, according to him, the Labour Court was right in not relying on the pro forma statement of the passengers, which was even supported by the statement of two passengers examined before the Enquiry Officer by the respondent, though did not feel it necessary to go into the question as to whether or not, not checking the cash bag of the respondent had any effect on the finding recorded by the Tribunal since the respondent himself stated that the passengers had paid only Rs. 10/- and he was demanding a further amount of Rs. 2. 50 paise for issuing tickets to them as per the correct fare to be paid for the destination. It is the said finding recorded by the Tribunal and learned Single Judge, which has been seriously assailed by the Corporation. So, whether or not, said finding is perverse, is for consideration.

( 5 ) AT the outset, it may be noted that in the case of State of Haryana and Another v Rattan Singh, the Supreme Court has held as under. "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". It has further observed that:". . . The simple point is, was there s