ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the Corporation"), has prayed for quashing the order of the Labour Court (Annexure-J)and that of the Industrial Court (Annexure-K), whereby the Courts have quashed the notice to show cause dated 20th April, 1979 (Annexure-G). 2-3. The material facts leading to this petition are thus: The respondent no. 1 was employed as a conductor. When he was on duty on 6.2.1972, his vehicle was checked by the flying squad, wherein 52 passengers were found travelling without ticket. After holding an enquiry, the services of the respondent no. 1 were terminated vide order dated 21.7.73. The respondent no. 1 challenged the order of his dismissal by filing an application before the Labour Court under Section 31 (3) of the MP. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"), The Corporation filed the written statement. A case against the respondent no. 1 was pending (Sessions Trial No. 90/72) under Section 304 Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Dewas, wherein the respondent no. 1 was convicted and was ordered to undergo a sentence of two years. During the pendency of the case before the Labour Court, the respondent no. 1 passed the sentence. The Corporation moved an application for amendment in the written statement, whereby the Corporation wanted to justify the dismissal order for an additional reason that the respondent no. 1 was convicted by a Criminal Court and because of the conviction and passing of the sentence, the respondent no. 1 is not entitled for reinstatement The amendment was allowed by the Labour Court in Labour Case No. 75/75 on 23.4.76. After this, a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the said Labour Case on 7.4.78. In the said joint application for compromise, the parties agreed that the Corporation shall reinstate the respondent no. 1 with continuity of his service. The respondent no. 1 in view of the compromise, agreed to give up his claim for back wages from the date of the dismissal till the date of the reinstatement. The respondent no. 1 thereafter was reinstated within 15 days. After a period of about one year, the Corporation issued a notice on 20th April, 1979 (Annexure-G) to the respondent no. 1 in view of the compromise, agreed to give up his claim for back wages from the date of the dismissal till the date of the reinstatement. The respondent no. 1 thereafter was reinstated within 15 days. After a period of about one year, the Corporation issued a notice on 20th April, 1979 (Annexure-G) to the respondent no. 1 to show cause why his services be not terminated on account of his conviction under section 304 Indian Penal Code by a Court of law in Sessions Trial No. 90/72, which a mounted to major misconduct. 4. The respondent no. 1 challenged the said show cause notice by filing an application under Section 61 of the Act in Case No. 87/79 before the Labour Court, wherein the respondent no. 1 contended that after considering all the circumstances, the compromise was arrived at and the respondent no. 1 was reinstated without back wages. In the circumstances, when the Corporation was aware of the misconduct, for which the said show cause notice has been issued, but even after this entered into a compromise and reinstated the respondent no. 1, the result of which is that the Corporation has condoned or waived the misconduct. Moreover the show cause notice has been issued after a period of six years, therefore, the Corporation had no authority or jurisdiction to take any action on the misconduct, which has been waived or condoned. The Corporation filed the reply and admitted in para 2 of the written statement that in paras 5 and 9 of the written statement filed by it in the case No. 56/75, the plea for not reinstating the respondent no. 1 and for justifying the dismissal on the ground of conviction of the respondent no. 1 under section 304 Indian Penal Code, were taken but as the termination was for the misconduct of carrying passengers without ticket, hence the Corporation is not debarred or estopped from taking action on the said misconduct due to conviction by the Court of a competent jurisdiction. The Corporation also contended that the application of the employee is not maintainable as the employee could have approached the Court after the final order is passed after the departmental enquiry the application challenging the show cause is not maintainable. The Corporation also contended that the application of the employee is not maintainable as the employee could have approached the Court after the final order is passed after the departmental enquiry the application challenging the show cause is not maintainable. The Labour Court vide its order Annexure-J, after recording of evidence and after hearing the parties held, that when once even after the knowledge of the misconduct, the employee has been reinstated by compromise, no action can be taken on such misconduct, as it amounts to condonation of the misconduct. Against this order, the Corporation filed a revision before the Industrial Court. The State Industrial Court, confirmed the order of the Labour Court, holding that the employee was convicted before passing of the order of dismissal, the Corporation was in know of the conviction and sentence, the Corporation sought an amendment in the written statement, which was allowed, though it appears that it was not incorporated in the written statement, but thereafter a compromise was arrived at between the Corporation and the employee, who thereafter was reinstated. It is thus clear that the Corporation by the compromise condoned the misconduct, hence, now the Corporation is estopped to lake action after a period of six years as the conduct of the Corporation leads to the inference that the Corporation by its subsequent misconduct has waived or condoned the misconduct. If the Corporation is allowed to proceed with the enquiry, it would amount to an unfair labour practice and harassment to the employee. 5. Shri S.M. Zanwar, learned counsel for the Corporation contended that it is true that an application for amendment in the written statement in the earlier case was allowed, but as the amendment was not incorporated, in the time fixed or thereafter, in the written statement then in that case the proposed pleadings, which were not incorporated in the written statement cannot be read or considered. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel is that it cannot be inferred that the subsequent misconduct was condoned. The other contention of the learned counsel was that the employee could not have approached the Labour Court as no final order was passed. Therefore, the Labour Court was having no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Shri Z. A. Warsi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 supported the order of the industrial Court and that of the Labour Court. 6. Therefore, the Labour Court was having no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Shri Z. A. Warsi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 supported the order of the industrial Court and that of the Labour Court. 6. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that the petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is true that ordinarily the Court should not interfere in the internal affairs and at the stage of pendency of the enquiry as the employee can approach the Labour Court under section 31 and section 61 of the Act after the final order is passed. But if the action of the employer is prima facie without jurisdiction or without authority, in the exceptional circumstances, when there is a total lack of jurisdiction in the authority of the employer for taking action, the Courts certainly have the power to interfere, even at the stage of show cause notice. 7. In the present case, from the facts alluded, it is evident that when the respondent no. 1 was dismissed vide order dated 21.5.73, the Corporation was aware of the conviction under section 394 Indian Penal Code but that ground of misconduct was not taken in the dismissal order. Thereafter, during the pendency of the case, the Corporation moved an application for amendment for justifying the dismissal order on the ground of conviction. It is true that the Industrial Court has observed in its order that the amendment, though, was allowed was not incorporated in the written statement filed in the earlier Case No. 56/75, but the plea finds place in paras 5 and 9 of the written statement filed with the petition. Thereafter, when the employee filed the Case No. 87/79, challenging the show cause notice, the Corporation admitted in para 2 of the written statement that the pleas of justifying the dismissal on the basis of conviction by a Criminal Court and the reason for not reinstating the employee were taken in paras 5 and 9 of the written statement filed in Case No. 56/75. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plea was not taken earlier. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plea was not taken earlier. In any case, even if it is found to be correct that the written statement was not amended, the Corporation was in the knowledge of the fact of the commission of the misconduct, i.e. the conviction under section 304 Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Court and passing of the sentence by the employee, even after this the compromise was arrived at between the parties, and thereafter the employee was reinstated within 15 days and after a period of about one year, the show cause notice was issued for taking action on the misconduct, i.e. on the ground of conviction by a Criminal Court, In our opinion, in such set of circumstances, the subsequent misconduct would be deemed to have been waived or condoned by the employer, as the Corporation even after the knowledge of the misconduct, entered into a compromise and the employee was reinstated, in view of this compromise, the respondent no, I forgone his back wages for a period of six years. 8. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of L.W. Middleton vs. Harry Playfair, AIR 1915 Cal. 87 has observed "that if a master on discovering that his servant has been guilty of misconduct, which would justify a dismissal, yet elects to continue him in his service, he cannot at any subsequent time dismiss him on account of that which he has waived or condoned," The judgment of the Calcutta High Court was followed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in District Council, Amraoti through Secretary vs. Vithal Vinayak Bapst, 1941 NLJ 98 : AIR 1941 Nag, 115, wherein it was observed that once a master has condoned any misconduct on part of servant which would have justified dismissal or a fine, he cannot, after such condonation, go back upon his election to condone and claim a right to dismiss him or impose a fine or any other punishment in respect of the offence which has been condoned. A Division Bench of this Court in Lal Andhraj Singh vs. State of M.P. 1967 MPLJ 528 : AIR 1967 MP 284 , after placing reliance on the English decisions and on the decisions of the Calcutta and Nagpur High Courts, observed "a master cannot impose any punishment on a servant for a misconduct which he has condoned. A Division Bench of this Court in Lal Andhraj Singh vs. State of M.P. 1967 MPLJ 528 : AIR 1967 MP 284 , after placing reliance on the English decisions and on the decisions of the Calcutta and Nagpur High Courts, observed "a master cannot impose any punishment on a servant for a misconduct which he has condoned. If the lapse or misconduct is one which is known to the authority before the person is promoted and not one which comes to light subsequent to the promotion and if the authority concerned knowing of this lapse or misconduct promotes the civil servant without any reservations, then it must be taken that the lapse or misconduct has been condoned and thereafter the servant cannot be punished for his lapse or misconduct. Thus, it is the view of this court that when once the misconduct, which is in the knowledge of the employer is condoned, then the employer is estopped to take action subsequently on the same. 9. There can be no doubt that the Corporation was aware of the misconduct, i.e. the conviction of the employee under section 304 Indian Penal Code by the Court of Sessions even before the order of earlier dismissal. But even after this, the compromise was arrived at between the parties without any reservation for taking action on the subsequent misconduct, i.e. conviction by a Criminal Court, and the Respondent no. 1 was reinstated without back wages. Besides, the compromise, which was without reservation, the show cause notice was issued after a period of one year from the date of reinstatement, this conduct on the part of the employer also debars the management to take action on the misconduct, which was already known to it. 10. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the show cause notice was wholly without jurisdiction which also amounted to unfair labour practice and reflects mala fides of the authorities. Therefore, no interference is called for in the orders of the Industrial Court and Labour Court. We do not find anything in the orders so as to make an interference in our supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150/- if already certified, The balance amount, if any, on verification be refunded 10 the petitioner.