ORDER S.S. Jha, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the orders passed by the Industrial Court and Labour Court directing reinstatement of Respondent No. 1 Surendra Singh Tomar. The brief facts of the case are that the services of the Respondent No. 1 Surendra Singh Tomar were terminated by the petitioner M.P. State Road Transport Corporation on November 28, 1986. After termination of services of the Respondent No. I the applicant moved on application under Sections 31, 61 and 62 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act before the Labour Court No. 2, Gwalior. The Labour Court allowed the application and directed reinstatement of the applicant Respondent No. 1 but without back-wages. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Court, Gwalior, was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 1 was a conductor of the Bus plying between Morena to Etawa. On the inspection of the vehicle it was found that 12 passengers were travelling without ticket. The petitioner Corporation terminated the services of the conductor on account of dereliction of duties. The petitioner also considered the past conduct of the Respondent No 1 in terminating the services. Both the Courts have recorded that 12 passengers travelling in the Bus were not holding the tickets. The petitioner stated that at the time of checking 12 passengers were found without tickets and if the Bus was not inspected then the amount of 12 tickets was likely to be defalcated by the conductor. The Respondent admitted in his deposition that he has not recovered the money. He stated that some boys about 15 to 16 years of age boarded the Bus. He has not seen other passengers boarding the Bus from Porsa. In the chart of conductor the number of passengers was 56 only whereas 89 passengers were travelling in the Bus. The petitioner referred to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Devkinandan Tiwari v. Industrial Court and Ors. reported in 1990 MPLJ 653 and submitted that this judgment has been incorrectly interpreted by the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court held that the intention of dishonesty against the conductor is not established. 3. The petitioner referred to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Devkinandan Tiwari v. Industrial Court and Ors. reported in 1990 MPLJ 653 and submitted that this judgment has been incorrectly interpreted by the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court held that the intention of dishonesty against the conductor is not established. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 stated that this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and no interference can be made in this petition unless glaring irregularity is reflected in the order. Learned counsel for the Respondent referred to the judgment in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors., reported in AIR 1984 SC 38 . Learned counsel submitted that wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to the question whether the inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. This Article cannot be invoked to correct an error on the face of the record much less an error of law. This Court cannot act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. The contention of the respondent is correct that this writ petitioner is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and cannot be treated as. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has challenged the decisions of the Tribunal which cannot be decided by this Court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction. Petition can be considered under the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No doubt this Court cannot proceed to review the evidence or sit as an appellate Court. 4. However it is to be seen that both the Courts have recorded a finding that the passengers were travelling without ticket. The finding in respect of mala fide intention of the conductor while interpreting the judgment of Devkinandan Tiwari (supra) is highly improper. Under the power of superintendence the Court can correct wrong interpretation of the judgment. 4. However it is to be seen that both the Courts have recorded a finding that the passengers were travelling without ticket. The finding in respect of mala fide intention of the conductor while interpreting the judgment of Devkinandan Tiwari (supra) is highly improper. Under the power of superintendence the Court can correct wrong interpretation of the judgment. The Division Bench in Devkinandan Tiwari's case (supra) considered the similar circumstances and held : "But in a case as one in hand where the conductor was found carrying a large number of passengers without tickets, the bus had travelled a long distance and yet the tickets were not issued though the conductor had ample time to do so and the explanation given by the conductor/petitioner was found to be totally baseless and false, the inference of dishonesty would be reasonable and fully justified, as dishonesty may also be inferred from false accounting of fact or an incident, as well as from absence of bona fides. The observation and experience enable the Court to judge intention from men's conduct and behaviour and there does not arise much difficulty in inferring from his conduct as to what was his real intention upon any given occasion". 5. In the instant case, the bus travelled around 16 Kms. and 12 passengers were found without tickets. The bus has travelled a long distance yet the tickets were not issued to the passengers though the conductor had ample time to do so. There is no explanation why the tickets were not issued by the conductor. It was argued by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 that students had boarded the bus who were 15 & 16 years of age, therefore, tickets were not issued to them. He stated that only 4 or 5 students had boarded the Bus. 6. In the present case 12 ticketless passengers were found in the bus. Looking at the past conduct of the Respondent No. 1 there is no difficulty in inferring the real intention of the Respondent No. 1. In para 7 of the judgment in Devkinandan's case (supra) the Court held that this conduct amounts to dishonesty. 6. In the present case 12 ticketless passengers were found in the bus. Looking at the past conduct of the Respondent No. 1 there is no difficulty in inferring the real intention of the Respondent No. 1. In para 7 of the judgment in Devkinandan's case (supra) the Court held that this conduct amounts to dishonesty. The Court observed that the practice is developed not to recover the fare from passengers who are travelling in the bus and if the bus is checked in between then to come forward with the usual defence that they have not recovered the fare ; and the intention of dishonesty cannot be attributed to them. After considering all the aspects and overall consideration of the facts it was found that the conduct of the Respondent No. 1 was of dishonesty, particularly looking at the previous conduct which was referred in the order. It is not the case where it can be said that the conduct of the conductor was an intention of dishonesty. 7. Both the Courts have not looked into this aspect of the matter and misinterpreted the judgment reported in Devkinandan's ease (supra). Thus the Tribunals have not acted within the limits of its authority and misapplied the princi- ples, therefore, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result the orders passed by the Industrial Court and the Labour Court are set aside and it is held that the petitioners have demonstrated before the Industrial Court that the termination of the Respondent No. 1 was proper looking at his past conduct the punishment of removal from service was imposed. The order of termination (Annexure P.3) is affirmed. The petition succeeds. However, there shall be no order as to costs.