THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 21164 OF 2007 O R D E R: The 1st respondent is employed as a Conductor, in the Rajendranagar Depot of APSRTC. A check was made on the bus conducted by the petitioner on 31.1.2003. Alleging that the 1st respondent failed to issue tickets after collecting fare from two passengers, a charge sheet was issued. Domestic inquiry was conducted, and on the basis of the report of the inquiry officer, the 2nd petitioner passed an order, dated 14.1.2004, imposing the punishment of removal from service, on the 1st respondent. The appeal preferred by the 1st respondent was rejected. Thereupon, he approached the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, by filing I.D.No.139 of 2004, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Through its award dated 20.9.2006, the Labour Court allowed the I.D., and set aside the order of removal. It directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent, with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages. The award is challenged by the petitioners. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Labour. The only allegation against the 1st respondent was that he collected fare from two passengers, who traveled between Hyderguda a n d Puranapool, and failed to issue tickets. T h e Labour Court examined the findings recorded against the 1st respondent in the domestic enquiry, and arrived at a conclusion that the charge against the 1st respondent was not proved. The basis for the allegation against the 1st respondent was the statement said to have been recorded from the passengers, at the time of check. The Corporation, however, came forward with two such statements, marked as Exs.M-2 and M-3. While in Ex.M-2, the passenger stated that the 1st respondent collected fare and issued tickets, in Ex.M-3, a totally different version is presented. Both the statements are said to be from the same passengers. The Labour Court found that there are several interpolations in Ex.M-3 and that it does not reflect the correct state of affairs. A doubt was also expressed, as to the time at which Ex.M-3 was brought into existence. The Labour Court furnished cogent and valid reasons, in support of its conclusion. This court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 23rd June 2008 PAN