K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent are not present. The petition is listed in the cause list for final hearing, which is special list (for Thursday) the matters are listed specially for final hearing. According to the note/instructions in the Roster, special instructions are also issued in respect of the matters listed for final hearing in special cause list on Thursday. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the hearing.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:

"7(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the form of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of Reference (L.C.S.) No. 13 of 2010 and after perusing the same be pleased to quash and set aside the award of the Tribunal dated 30-6-2014."

3. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the respondent herein raised Industrial Dispute against the order of penalty dated 20-2-2002. Appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court at Surat. The learned Labour Court registered the reference as Reference (L.C.S.) No. 13 of 2010.

3.1. In his statement of claim, the respondent (claimant/workman) alleged that he worked with the Corporation as Conductor since 1979. The workman further alleged that with concocted allegation, the Corporation served a charge-sheet dated 5-8-2001 and in pursuance of the said charge-sheet, the Corporation conducted domestic enquiry. The claimant further alleged that the Enquiry Officer did not grant sufficient opportunity of hearing and defence and arbitrarily closed the proceedings by depriving him from the opportunity to lead evidence. He further alleged that without support of any evidence, the Enquiry Officer held that the allegations are proved and on the basis of such incorrect and unjust conclusion by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority arbitrarily terminated his service vide order dated 22-2-2002. With the allegation that though the charge of misconduct is not proved, the employer illegally terminated his service, the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated in service with back-wages and other benefits.

3.2. The opponent-Corporation opposed the reference and the demand by the claimant. In its reply, the opponent-Corporation claimed that the claimant was assigned duty on 5-8-2001 on Bus No. 1805 which was en route to Panchol from Vyara and that the said bus was checked by the Checking Squad. The Checking Squad found that the claimant committed irregularity in issuing the tickets to four passengers and also committed irregularity in preparing way bill. The Checking Squad also noticed that the claimant had not issued tickets to the passengers according to serial number of the tickets in the block but had randomly issued tickets. According to the Corporation, the conduct of the claimant and the method and manner in which he issued tickets resulted into loss of fare to the Corporation and also resulted in misappropriation of the fare. The Checking Squad reported the said misconduct of the Corporation. Thereupon, the Corporation issued charge-sheet and conducted domestic enquiry in accordance with the applicable rules. Upon conclusion of the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report with the findings and conclusion that the charge and allegations against the workman are proved. The Corporation further claimed in the reply that in view of the proved misconduct, the competent authority considered appropriate to terminate the service of the claimant, and therefore, the authority passed order dated 22-2-2002 and terminated service of the claimant. According to the Corporation, there is no illegality or error or arbitrariness in the order The Corporation also claimed that the reference should be rejected.

3.3. After the parties comp