count alone his explanation cannot be discarded. It is an admitted fact that the son of Saleem was studying at Bangalore. Therefore, there was every possibility of Saleem handing over the amount of Rs.475/- to the workman to hand over the same to his son for his requirement. In a charged atmosphere when the higher authorities besieged the Conductor and sought explanation, it would be difficult for any employee to create some story on the spot unless some truth is there in his explanation. Therefore, learned counsel would argue, the spot explanation could be believed. Learned counsel would further submit that Saleem might be won over by the mighty organisation to prove his charge and therefore, he must not have supported the version of workman. Hence, merely his name was not specifically mentioned in the spot explanation and he did not support the version of the workman during enquiry, on that count alone his explanation cannot be discarded. Learned counsel would further submit that the version of workman was clearly supported by Seshaiah another conductor. He clearly stated, in his presence Saleem had handed over the amount to the workman to give to his son. If really the incident had not occurred, Seshaiah would not have supported the case of the workman. Therefore, the spot explanation was a truthful one which was accepted by the Industrial Tribunal. The reason for not informing the Depot Supervisor is also well explained. At the time when Saleem handing over the amount to workman, the passengers made hue and cry for starting the bus, as it was already delayed and therefore, driver was about to start the bus and in those circumstances, the workman could not get the endorsement from the Depot Supervisor. He had already obtained the endorsement from the Supervisor with respect to his own amount of Rs.150/-. That was occurred some time prior to the starting of the bus. Therefore, the explanation for not obtaining the endorsement of the Depot Supervisor was also a reasonable and truthful one. However,
