Short Note : 1. The petitioner challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court, Jabalpur. By its order dated 18-11-70, the Labour Court held that on the material before the Enquiry Officer, he was justified in finding that the guilt of the petitioner was proved. It was a major misconduct. However, the management omitted to take into consideration the past record and the extenuating circumstances in the case as contained in the Standing Order 12 (3)(c) governing the service conditions of the petitioner. The Labour Court, after considering the trifling extent of the amount involved and looking to the past record of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal would be too severe and ordered reinstatement without back wages. The management was aggrieved by the decision and approached the State Industrial Court in a revision under section 66 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The State Industrial Court by its order dated 10-12-71 allowed the revision and held that the labour Court was not justified in interfering with the punishment once it was found that the domestic enquiry was proper and the findings were justified on the evidence on record. 2. Held: The employer's right to decide upon the quantum of punishment is indeed subject to the Standing Order 12 (3) (c). The Labour Court was, therefore, competent to consider the question of punishment and determine it after taking into consideration the requirements of the Standing Order 12(3)(c). The dictum of numerous cases that once the Labour Court found that the allegations mentioned in the charges were proved the question of punishment imposed by management was left alone as an incidence of the managerial function would not apply to a case where the management had failed to take into consideration the mandatory requirements of the Standing Order 12(3)(c). The observations in Andhra Scientific Company, Ltd. v. Seshagiri Roo (A) and another [(1961) LLJ 117 at page 120] and other similar observations would not apply to the present case as the management had not taken into consideration the Standing Order 12 (3) (c) before imposing the punishment 3. The Labour Court found that the petitioner was guilty of not collecting the fare from the 1 passengers and for not collecting the fare of 2 maunds of luggage. The Labour Court found that the petitioner was guilty of not collecting the fare from the 1 passengers and for not collecting the fare of 2 maunds of luggage. Whether the amount was small or large, the fact remained that the conductor was attempting to pocket this amount of fare. For a misconduct of this type, the consideration of length of service was not significant enough. If it were merely a case of laches, the long service rendered by the petitioner would militate against the misconduct imputed and it could be said that the workman who had been efficiently working for the length of his service had faltered unintentionally, In the instant case again, no extenuating circumstance could be pleaded. In our opinion, the revisional Court could consider the question of punishment when it is imposed in disregard to the well settled principles. The management has an equal right to call in question the order of the Labour Court on a plea that the continuance of the workman would be detrimental to the management in various ways and the punishment imposed must, therefore, be more severe. The management could contend that the order of reinstatement was not justified. The revisional Court was not deprived of jurisdiction to decide the question of punishment when punishment itself had been the subject matter of the dispute before the Labour Court. When the Labour Court was required to judge the propriety of the punishment and it did not appreciate the gravity of the misconduct and its impact on the organisation and showed unawareness of the administrative objectivity, the jurisdiction was exercised with material irregularity and the interference by the State Industrial Court was justified. In this view of the matter, we think that the State Industrial Court was justified in holding that the dismissal from service was the proper punishment. (1961) LLJ 117, distinguished. Petition dismissed.