Honble MISRA, J. – The Petitioner-a conductor in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the Award passed by the Labour Court, Bha- ratpur dated 12.9.1991 by which although the petitioner had been reinstated in service was awarded the penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect and was also refused grant of any back wages from the date of his removal to the date of his retirement. (2). While the petitioner was working as a conductor in the Alwar Depot of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short RSRTC) was placed under suspension for carrying certain passengers without issuing tickets to them, regarding which a charge sheet dated 23.4.1981 was issued to him which was followed by an enquiry by the Disciplinary Authority which concluded on 10.9.1991 holding the charge against the petitioner as proved and awarded him a penalty of removal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the punishment of removal from service which, however was rejected. Thereafter an application before the Deputy Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer was filed by the petitioner, but the same did not result in conciliation and accordingly a failure report dated 16.4.1984 was submitted to the Government. The State Government refused to make a reference of the dispute. The petitioner came up to this court under the writ jurisdiction, which was numbered as SBCWP No. 613/1985, which was allowed by order dated 10.11.1986 and the State Government was directed to reconsider with regard to the dispute raised by the petitioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in accordance with law. In compliance to this order, reference was made to the Labour Court, Bharatpur vide order dated 18.4.1987 and was registered as LC. No. 74/87 in which the petitioner filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court. Reply to the same was also filed by the respondent RSRTC. (3). In the aforesaid proceedings an interim order dated 17.4.1989 was passed by the Labour Court permitting the parties to lead evidence in the matter before the Labour Court and, accordingly, the evidence was led. Reply to the same was also filed by the respondent RSRTC. (3). In the aforesaid proceedings an interim order dated 17.4.1989 was passed by the Labour Court permitting the parties to lead evidence in the matter before the Labour Court and, accordingly, the evidence was led. After proper adjudication of the dispute the Labour Court passed an award on 12.9.1991 giving a finding that the order of removal from service of the petitioner is legally justified but further considered as to whether the punishment of removal from service was also justified looking to the fact that these types of misconduct are not uncommon. The learned Judge, Labour Court therefore held that the petitioner although was guilty of misconduct still the punishment was too severe and therefore taking a lenient view, ordered for stopping of three grade increments to the petitioner with cumulative effect and further ordered that he shall not be entitled for any back wages for the period during which he has been out of job except subsistence allowance which he has received during the period of his suspension. (4). The Award of the Labour Court has therefore, been partially challenged as already stated hereinabove wherein it has been contended that once the Labour Court has come to a finding although by an interim order that the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent was not fair, the management ought to have dropped the enquiry and should have passed an order for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The finding of misconduct has also been challenged on the factual aspect wherein it has been stated that there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner as 2-1/2 passengers and one cycle for which tickets have not been issued was on account of over loaded bus wherein it was practicable not possibly for the conductor/petitioner to issue tickets instantly. The finding is therefore challenged as perverse. Finally it has been submitted that in case this court is not inclined to set aside the order regarding stoppage of increments the back wages from the date of removal from service to the date of reinstatement should be gran- ted as the order of removal from service has been set aside by the Judge, Labour Court. (5). Although on behalf of the petitioner, in support of his case, several decisions have been cited viz. (5). Although on behalf of the petitioner, in support of his case, several decisions have been cited viz. Desh Raj Gupta vs. Industrial Tribunal (1) and RSRTC vs.Transport Workers (2) and equally numerous citations have been given on behalf of the respondents RSRTC also for instance Kalyani vs. Air France (3) and Rajasthan State Road Corporation vs. Bhagyomal (4) it is quite clear that the ques- question which requires consideration in this writ petition has been the subject matter of dispute in a large number of cases where the views taken by the learned Judges have been subjective in nature ending up in contrary views. It is therefore safe to Rule upon the latest view of the Supreme Court on this question wherein the position has been summed up in the matter of Rajsthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Bhagyomal (5) wherein a Bench of Honble P.B. Sawant and B.P. Jeewan Reddy JJ had an occasion to consider regarding the propriety of granting of back wages and stopping of two grade increments with cumulative effect in the event of reinstatement of the employee charged for misconduct. While ordering reinstatement in the said case of the relevant employee, the Tribunal while reducing the punishment denied the back wages to the workman which was challenged before the High Court. Yet High Court interfered with the same and while upholding the order of reinstatement set aside the order of stopping three grade increments and directed the RSRTC to grant back wages also to the delinquent employee. The learned Judges in this situation had held that the High Courts order is self contradictory and elaborating on this question, it was held that when the High Court found that the respondent employee deserves punishment on account of misconduct it could not have rewarded him by granting his back wages particularly when the Tribunal had converted the order of dismissal into that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Accordingly the appeal has been allowed and the order awarding back wages and increment was set aside. Accordingly the appeal has been allowed and the order awarding back wages and increment was set aside. The facts of the instant case are wholly identical to the case referred to hereinabove and applying the same yardstick the Labour Court in the instant case in my view was fully justified indenying back wages and passing an order of stopping two grade increments again the petitioner once a finding of fact has been recorded that the charge of misconduct is fully proved. (6). There is, thus, no scope for interference in this writ petition which is accordingly rejected without any order as to costs.