( 1 ) HEARD Mr. H. C. Rawal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE petitioner Corporation has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference No. 379 / 1999 dated 1/01/2001, wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service without backwages of interim period. This Court has issued RULE returnable on 22nd March, 2002 and granted ad-interim relief in terms of para-7[c] of the prayer clause vide order dated 8th February, 2002. However, notice of RULE issued by this Court has remained unserved on the respondent work man.

( 3 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Rawal for petitioner Corporation has submitted that serious misconduct has been committed by the respondent workman, even though the labour court has exercised the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is basic error committed by the labour court while granting such relief in favour of the respondent workman. Learned advocate Mr. Rawal has also submitted that the labour court has also committed gross error in coming to the conclusion that misconduct is not found to have proved and therefore, award in question is required to be quashed and set aside.

( 4 ) I have considered submissions of learned advocate Mr. Rawal on behalf of the petitioner Corporation. Before the Labour Court, the respondent workman has challenged the dismissal order dated 11/03/1998. In support of his case, the respondent had submitted statement of claim vide Exh. 11 and thereafter, the petitioner Corporation has filed written statement vide Exh. 10. Thereafter, documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner Corporation vide Exh. 6 which also included default card of the respondent workman. The respondent workman had not challenged the legality and validity of the inquiry vide Exh. 13 and also not claimed any backwages of the interim period by way of said purshis and requested the labour court to exercise the powers under Section 11-A of the I. D. Act. Thereafter, vide Exh. 14 the respondent workman has not led any further evidence and the petitioner Corporation has also closed its evidence vide Exh. 12. Thereafter, the labour court has examined the merits of the matter. T he allegation made against the respondent workman that on 20-11-1996 when he was on his duty on bus route from Shirdi to Ahmedabad, said bus was checked, at that time, five and one half passengers of one group travelling from Shirdi to Surat, fare of Rs. 400/against the actual fare of Rs. 458. 50 ps was collected but proper tickets were not issued. It was also allegation against the workman that though signal was given by the Checking Inspector , bus was not stopped by the driver and therefore, after overtaking the bus in question, the checking staff had carried out checking. In departmental inquiry, the respondent workman has denied the allegations made against him. Thereafter, reporter was examined who was cross examined by the respondent workman. In cross examination of the reporter, the reporter in terms admitted that those tickets were obtained by the checking staff from the passengers, were found with proper punch mark. However, it was only explained by the reporter that if the passengers had boarded from Shirdi , as per the Rules, regular panch was required to be made in Column No. 1. The labour court has also considered that at the time of checking, S. T. Cash was not checked by the checking staff. Thereafter, the respondent workman was examined by the competent authority wherein, he admitted the statement which bear his signature and even statements of the passengers wherein also signature was made by the respondent workman. Explanation was called for from the respondent workman by the competent authority wherein he explained to the effect that five and one half passengers of one group had in fact boarded from Toharabad and after the bus left the stand of Toharabad, immediately the respondent had issued ticke