JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner Man Rakhanlal was a Bus conductor in the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. He was then reverted to the post of Helper. While he was posted as Helper at the Durg depot of the Corporation, on 29-1-1972 he was deputed to work as a Bus conductor in one of the buses of the Corporation. That bus was checked by the Checking Squad and it is alleged that 21 out of 71 passengers were found to be travelling without ticket in that bus. The petitioner as well as the driver of that bus were charge sheeted for misconduct. The misconduct was found proved against both of them. The driver of the bus was punished with suspension of four days while the petitioner was dismissed from service by order Annexure a dated 25-5-1972. The petitioner filed an application under section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, to the Labour Court challenging his dismissal. The labour Court by its order annexure b dated 31-12-1974 directed reinstatement of the petitioner with half back wages. The labour Court held that there was no defect in the domestic enquiry. However, (he Labour Court came to the conclusion that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was discriminatory inasmuch as the driver of that bus had been let off with a lesser punishment. The corporation filed a revision to the Industrial Court under section 66 of the act which has been allowed by order Annexure c dated 27-5-1975. The industrial Court, following the decision of this Court in M. P. S. R T. Corporation v. Jagannath Singh, Misc. Petition No. 135 of 1971, decided on 30-8-1974. (Indore Bench) has held that the driver and the bus conductor did not belong to the same class for the purpose of the charge of misconduct proved against them and, therefore, there can be no discrimination in awarding the driver a lesser punishment. Accordingly, the Corporations revision has been allowed and the Labour Courts order directing reinstatement of the petitioner with half back wages has been set aside. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Industrial Court Annexure c. ( 2. ) SHRI Gulab Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on another decision of this Court in Jamir Ahmed v. State Industrial court and another, Misc. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Industrial Court Annexure c. ( 2. ) SHRI Gulab Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on another decision of this Court in Jamir Ahmed v. State Industrial court and another, Misc. Petition No. 698 of 1973, decided on 25-2-1974. has contended that this is a clear case of discrimination in the award of punishment since the driver and the bus conductor belong to the same class lor the purpose of the charge of misconduct. Learned counsel argued that the earlier decision of this Court in Jamir Ahmeds case was not noticed by the Division Bench deciding Jagannath Singhs case : and it is for this reason that a contrary view has been taken therein. Learned counsel contends that we must follow the earlier Division Bench decision in jamir Ahmeds case which fully supports his contention. In reply learned counsel for the Corporation has placed reliance on Jagannath Singhs case and contended that this decision is based on the law laid down by the supreme Court which had not been noticed in the earlier decision given in jamirs Ahmeds case. It is also contended that Jamir Ahmeds case is distinguishable. There is no dispute before us that Jagannath Singhs case supports the Corporation. The question, therefore, is whether Jamir ahmeds case takes a contrary view on the same point and if so, what course should be adopted by us ? The case of the petitioner before us was confined only to this contention i. e. to restoration of the Labour Courts order annexure b directing reinstatement with half back wages. Accordingly, this is the only question for decision before us. ( 3. ) IN our opinion, Jamir Ahmeds case is distinguishable on facts and it does not take a contrary view on the same point. There was a clear finding recorded in that case in the domestic enquiry that the driver was also guilty of active collusion with the conductor which enabled the conductor to carry in the bus several passengers without tickets. For this reason, the driver was obviously equally guilty with the conductor of the misconduct of carrying passengers without tickets in the bus. For this reason, the driver was obviously equally guilty with the conductor of the misconduct of carrying passengers without tickets in the bus. In such a situation, the driver and conductor had to be treated alike in the matter of punishment and awarding a much lesser punishment to driver while dismissing the conductor tor the same misconduct was held to be discriminatory amounting to lack of bona fides of the management. On this basis, power of labour Court to interfere with the punishment of dismissal awarded to the conductor was upheld and interference of Industrial Court with the Labour courts exercise of this power was held to be uncalled for. The observations made by the Division Bench in Jamir Ahmeds case have to be understood in this background. That decision is to be confined in its application only to those cases where there is a finding of active collusion by the driver with the conductor which enabled carriage of passengers without tickets. Such an additional finding place the driver in the same class with the conductor making them equally guilty of the misconduct of carrying passengers without tickets. It is clear that in the absence of any such finding of active collusion by the driver with the conductor or any other finding which makes them equally guilty, it cannot be said that the driver must invariably be treated as belonging to the same class where the misconduct found proved against the conductor is of carrying passengers without tickets in the bus. Jamir Ahmeds case cannot be read as laying down the proposition suggested by the petitioner. ( 4. ) IN Jagannath Singhs case (supra), there was no such finding of active collusion by the driver with the bus conductor. The ratio of Jamir ahmeds case, therefore, did not apply. It was, accordingly, held that merely because driver was awarded a lesser punishment there was no discrimination as the driver and conductor did not belong to the same class. We do not find any conflict between these two decisions. As earlier stated, the decision in Jamir Ahmeds case applies only where a finding of active collusion by the driver makes him equally guilty with the conductor and thereby places both of them in the same class. We do not find any conflict between these two decisions. As earlier stated, the decision in Jamir Ahmeds case applies only where a finding of active collusion by the driver makes him equally guilty with the conductor and thereby places both of them in the same class. There was no such finding in Jagannath Singhs case as also in the case before us It is significant that P. K. Tare C. J. was a party to both these decisions. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the learned Chief Justice would not take conflicting views sitting in two different Division Benches. This fact also reinforces our conclusion that there is no conflict between them as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 5. ) IT is not shown to us that there is any finding of active collusion by the driver with the bus conductor in the present case. Jamir Ahmeds case relied on by the petitioner has, therefore, no application. On the other hand, Jagannath Singhs case, admittedly, applies. For this reason, the industrial Court rightly followed Jagannath Singhs case to decide in favour of the Corporation. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also argued that the substance of the charge must be seen to determine whether the driver and the conductor belong to the same class. According to learned counsel, the substance of the charge is disobedience of the General Managers orders, and this places them in the same class. We are unable to accept this contention. The test is whether the misconduct results only because of the General Managers orders and there would be no such misconduct if the General Managers orders were not passed requiring the drivers and conductors to do their duties. It is clear that this misconduct results independent of the Genera! managers orders. The substance of the charge is carrying passengers without tickets. Even without the General Managers orders that this is a misconduct because of the provisions of the Standing Orders. It is substantially this misconduct which is found proved against the conductor. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the General Managers orders which fix a joint responsibility on the driver are decisive of this question and result in placing the driver and the conductor in the same class for the purpose of this misconduct. It is substantially this misconduct which is found proved against the conductor. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the General Managers orders which fix a joint responsibility on the driver are decisive of this question and result in placing the driver and the conductor in the same class for the purpose of this misconduct. As earlier indicated, the position may be different where, as in jamir Ahmeds case, there is a clear finding of active collusion by the driver with the conductor so as to make them equally guilty of the same misconduct and place them in the same class. That, however, is not the position in the present case. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also argued that we should refer this matter to a larger Bench in view of conflict between the decisions in jamir Ahmeds case and Jagannath Singhs case. We have already pointed out that there is no such conflict as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner and that Jamir Ahmeds case applies only to a particular category of cases which has been indicated. The question of making a reference, as suggested, does not arise. ( 8. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this petition fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. The security, if any, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.