The High Court emphasized the limited scope of interference in labour dispute awards, highlighting the application of legal principles and the need for evidence to prove disputed facts.

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the award passed by 1st respondent in I.D.No.74 of 1998 dated 09.10.2003.

2. The facts of the case would be as follows:- The 2nd respondent was working as a conductor in the petitioner / Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation [Kumbakonam] Limited. On 25.11.1996, he was the conductor in the bus plying between Thirunallar and Trichy. At 07.40 a.m., the bus commenced its journey from Thirunallar and at 11.30 a.m., when the bus was passing through a place known as "Poondi", it was intercepted by a team of Checking Inspectors of the petitioner corporation. At that time, totally, there were fifty three passengers in the bus. Out of them, six passengers had boarded the bus at a place known as "Ammapettai". The distance between Ammapettai and Poondi is hardly six kilo meters. During the surprise check up made by the team of Checking Inspectors, it was found that out of fifty three passengers traveling in the bus, fifty one passengers had tickets and two passengers were found without ticket. On enquiry, one passengers told the Checking Inspector that he did not pay any amount and he did not get ticket. Therefore, the Checking Inspector collected the bus fare and also imposed fine. The other passenger told the Checking Inspectors that he had paid Rs.3/- to the 2nd respondent/conductor as soon as he boarded the bus at Ammapettai. He further said that the 2nd respondent having received rupees three did not issue ticket to him to travel upto Thanjavur. The Checking Inspector recorded the statement of the passengers, collected relevant records maintained by the conductor and made a complaint about the same to the management. According to the Checking Inspector, when he enquired the 2nd respondent herein/conductor, he confessed to his guilt. But, he declined to give any written statement. The driver of the bus was present when the conductor and the passenger were examined. He made his signature to be a witness for the above occurrence.

3. Based on the above report of the Checking Inspector, a charge memo was issued to the 2nd respondent on 20.12.1996 levelling as many as five charges. Charge Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the failure of the 2nd respondent to issue ticket to the passenger after having received rupees three towards ticket fare. Charge No.3 relates to the fact that when the cash-bag was examined by the Checking Inspector, there was deficit to the tune of rupees five. Charge No.4 is in respect of denial of the 2nd respondent to receive the mahazar prepared at the spot by the Checking Inspector. Charge No.4 is that by his conduct, the 2nd respondent had brought disrepute to the corporation.

4. The 2nd respondent denied the above charges. Insofar as the charge Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, according to him, the passenger in question did not pay rupees three. He would further state that the passenger like the other passenger had failed to purchase ticket and thus, he was a ticketless traveller. In respect of charge No.3, he submitted that he spent rupees five for his personal expenses and he was under the impression that he could pay the same in the evening when the accounts are settled.

5. Having not satisfied with the said explanation, an enquiry was ordered. Before the enquiry officer, the Checking Inspector was examined and documents were all marked. More particularly, the statement of the passenger was also marked in evidence. But, the passenger was not examined. The driver of the bus was also not examined. Having considered the above evidences placed before him, the enquiry officer found the 2nd respondent guilty under all charges. Thereafter, based on the above findings, the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service.

6. Challenging the said order of dismissal dated 18.11.1997, the 2nd respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.74 of 1998 before the Labour Court, Cuddalore. In the claim statement, he raised an issue that the enquiry was not held fairly and properly. But, the labour c