S. D. PANDIT, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. E. G. Jani learned advocate for respondent waives service of notice of Rule. ( 2 ) ). Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (G. S. R. T. C.) has filed the present writ petition to challenge the order passed by the Labour Court, Surat on 21. 1. 1997 in reference No. 512 of 1996. ( 3 ) ). The respondent Amrutbhai C. Patel was working as a conductor under the divisional Controller, G. S. R. T. C. , Surat Division, Surat. On 5. 4. 1995 when the respondent was on duty as a conductor. When his bus was checked, it was found that he had misused 39 coupons meant for handicapped persons and had misappropriated the amount of Rs. 2,375/ -. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him and in the said departmental inquiry it was found that though he has issued 39 coupons valued at rs. 2,375/- meant for the physically handicapped persons, as a matter of fact no handicapped person had travelled through his bus and that said coupons were given to the other persons for value and that the amount of Rs. 2,375/- was misappropriated by him. Therefore, on the basis of the said findings recorded by the inquiry officer in the departmental inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service by order of dismissal dated 17. 6. l996. He therefore, raised an industrial dispute and on account of the same, reference No. 512 of 1996 was made to the Labour Court, Surat. ( 4 ) ). When the said reference came up for hearing, the respondent-delinquent passed a purshis saying that he was not disputing the validity and legality of the departmental inquiry. He also mentioned in the said purshis that he should be reinstated in service and he was giving up the claim of back wages for the interregnum period. After filing of the said purshis, the present respondent filed a purshis stating therein that they do not want to lead further evidence of Exh. 10. Thereafter the petitioner filed purshis at Exh. 11 saying that, the petitioner does not want to lead further evidence. After filing of the said purshis, the present respondent filed a purshis stating therein that they do not want to lead further evidence of Exh. 10. Thereafter the petitioner filed purshis at Exh. 11 saying that, the petitioner does not want to lead further evidence. Thereafter, the Presiding officer, Labour Court held that there is a proof of misappropriation of the coupons meant for the handicapped persons but he was considering the only question regarding the adequacy and validity of the punishment of dismissal awarded to the delinquent. It was contended by the petitioner before him that the history sheet of the respondent shows that he was previously punished on 8 occasions for the non issuing of tickets to passengers inspite of recovering fare from them. Therefore, taking into consideration of that circumstance, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court should not interfere with the order of punishment. But the Labour Court was pleased to partly allow the said reference by directing the reinstatement of the respondent within 30 days without any back wages and continuity of service by his order dated 21. 1. 1997. ( 5 ) ). Being felt aggrieved by the said decision the G. S. R. T. C. has come before this court. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that when the delinquent had accepted of having misused 29 coupons worth Rs. 2,375/- and mis-appropriated that amount and when it was found that he was guilty of the charge levelled against him and that previously he had committed similar defaults on 8 other occasions, there was no justification to interfere with the order of dismissal from service. It is submitted that the respondent had committed grave offence of misappropriation of public money by committing criminal breach of trust and therefore, there was no justification of continuing him in the said job and thereby giving him further opportunity to repeat the same illegal activities. It is submitted before me that the discretion is misused by the Labour Court as the Labour Court has interfered with punishment without giving any reasons and that too in a case where interference is not justified. Consequently said exercise of the powers of the Labour Court is manifestly erroneous and grossly illegal and therefore, this court should interfere with the same by exercising powers under Art. 226/227 of the constitution of India. ( 6 ) ). Consequently said exercise of the powers of the Labour Court is manifestly erroneous and grossly illegal and therefore, this court should interfere with the same by exercising powers under Art. 226/227 of the constitution of India. ( 6 ) ). As against this it is submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the award passed by the Labour Court on the principle of estoppel. It is contended that the officer of the petitioner had endorsed on the purshis given by the respondent of having "seen" the contents of the said purshis in which he had given up his claim for disputing the validity and legality of the departmental inquiry and had also agreed to seek reinstatement without back wages by accepting the charges levelled against him. It is submitted further that the judgment in question is invited by both the parties and therefore, none of them is entitled to challenge the same by filing writ petition. In support of that submission of him, learned advocate for the respondent has produced before me copies of two orders passed by the learned single judge of this Court in SCA No. 821 of 1998 G. S. R. T. C. vs. Amkush Gopal Wankade, decided on 6. 4. 1998 and SCA No. 8135 of 1997 Divisional Controller vs. Shivabhai kashibhai Zala. decided on 11. 2. 1998. It is further submitted in the alternative by learned advocate for the respondent that in this case the Presiding Officer, Labour Court justified in interfering with the order of punishment. He further submitted that when the Labour court has found that the respondent is to be given reinstatement in service and if this court ultimately, is not in position to agree with the finding recorded by the Labour court, then in that case the respondent may be given reinstatement in any other post but in any event, the respondent should not be thrown out of employment. ( 7 ) ). I will deal with the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the respondent about the maintainability of the present petition. Mr. B. G. Jani for the respondent urged before me that when the respondent-delinquent had filed purshis Exh. 9 that he was not disputing the validity and legality of the departmental inquiry, the respondent was requesting to reinstate him in service without back wages. Mr. B. G. Jani for the respondent urged before me that when the respondent-delinquent had filed purshis Exh. 9 that he was not disputing the validity and legality of the departmental inquiry, the respondent was requesting to reinstate him in service without back wages. Said purshis was endorsed by the representative of the present petitioner who was present there by writing on the said purshis "seen" and therefore, it will have to be held that the contents therein were accepted and admitted by the petitioner. As the position stands today, neither the petitioner nor the respondent has produced the certified copy of the purshis Exh. 9. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the hold that as a matter of fact in the said purshis word "seen" is endorsed and written by the representative of the present petitioner. But even assuming that the representative of the petitioner had endorsed on the purshis of the respondent, in which he admits the validity and legality of the departmental inquiry and finding of the departmental inquiry and seeks reinstatement in service without back wages by writing on the said purshis the word "seen", it is impossible to hold that by writing the word "seen" the otherside has agreed to the contents of the said purshis. There is lot of difference between the words "seen" and "agreed". The word "seen" will in turn indicate that the party is aware of the contents stated in the purshis and at the most it could be said that he has seen and read the contents therein. But it is impossible to hold that by writing the word "seen" the other side had agreed the correctness or truthfulness of the contents of the purshis. If both the sides want the court to pass an order or judgment on any agreed terms between the parties, then there would be a joint purshis by both the sides mentioning therein the terms of the agreement and further requesting the court to pass a final order, or judgment in terms of the said agreement. Here the purshis is written by one side and by that purshis the delinquent has given up his challenge to the validity and legality of the departmental inquiry as well as the finding recorded against him in the departmental inquiry. Here the purshis is written by one side and by that purshis the delinquent has given up his challenge to the validity and legality of the departmental inquiry as well as the finding recorded against him in the departmental inquiry. In the said purshis the delinquent had further stated that he was ready and willing to accept reinstatement by giving up the claim of back wages. Now these words added by him, of his readiness and willingness to accept reinstatement without back wages would at the most, could be treated as a request to the Court is to pass an order reinstating him in service without back wages because once he admits the charge levelled against him was proved then it is for the court to decide what punishment is to be given to the respondent-delinquent. It is settled law that the litigant cannot bargain with the Court on the point of punishment/sentence. Similarly the court cannot bargain on the point of punishment. The awarding of punishment is a the discretionary power of the Court. ( 8 ) ). A now (sic) apart from this, the award of the Labour Court itself clearly shows that the purshis filed by the respondent-delinquent was not treated by the court as well as by both the parties as conclusion of the matter. Because the award further shows that after passing the purshis Exh. 9, the respondent had filed purshis Exh. 10 mentioning therein that he does not want to lead any oral evidence. Thereafter, present petitioner had filed purshis Exh. 11 saying that the petitioner does not want to lead any oral evidence. If the matter was closed and the Labour Court was to pass an award in terms of the purshsi Exh. 9, there was no necessity of filing the two purshis Exhs. 10 and 11. The award further shows that thereafter oral submissions were made by both the petitioner as well as the respondent. The petitioner had brought to the notice of the court Exh. 8 which was disclosing the previous misconduct committed by the respondent on 8 occasion and had requested the Labour Court to take the same into consideration and to pass an award accordingly. The award further shows that all the submissions made were taken into consideration and thereafter the Labour Court passed an award in the following words :"reference raised by the second party is partly allowed. The award further shows that all the submissions made were taken into consideration and thereafter the Labour Court passed an award in the following words :"reference raised by the second party is partly allowed. The first party is hereby ordered to reinstate the second party in service without continuity of service and without back wages without 30 days from the date of publication of this award. No order as to costs. "this final portion of the award also clearly indicates and shows that the Labour Court has not passed the award on the basis of Exh. 9. The copies of two orders passed in the writ petitions produced by Mr. Jani for the respondent do not show what were the facts before the learned single Judge and what were the terms of the award which were challenged before him. Therefore, in the circumstances, I am unable to hold that said orders are applicable to the facts before me. I have already discussed in details the legal and factual aspect of the case before me. It must be further mentioned that from the facts of the case before me, it is not possible to hold and accept that the claim of the original respondent-present petitioner is barred by the principles of estoppel. I therefore, hold that said contention raised on behalf of the delinquent respondent could not be accepted. In the circumstances, I hold that present petition is tenable in law. ( 9 ) ). Admittedly, the respondent had passed a purshis giving up the claim for the challenge of legality and validity of the departmental inquiry and he had also admitted the charges levelled against him. The papers of the departmental inquiry were also placed before the Labour Court to show that the respondent had committed misconduct alleged against him. Therefore, in view of these circumstances the Labour Court was justified in holding that the misconduct alleged against the respondent was proved. Said finding of the Labour Court is not either perverse or grossly erroneous so as to interfere with the same by exercising the powers under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India. ( 10 ) ). The contention which was raised before the Industrial Tribunal was that the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent was grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the delinquent. ( 10 ) ). The contention which was raised before the Industrial Tribunal was that the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent was grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the delinquent. The Labour Court was also informed and material, was placed before it to show that the respondent had previously committed 8 defaults before the incident in question. The charge levelled against the respondent was that he had misused 39 coupons meant for physically handicapped person and had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2,375/ -. Said charge levelled against him is held to be proved. The charge against him is of very serious nature and when the respondent has committed criminal breach of trust of public money, this punishment of dismissal from service awarded to him could not be said to be grossly inadequate so as to interfere with the same by the Labour Court. If the order passed by the labour Court is seen then it would be quite clear that the Labour Court has not given any reason for coming to the conclusion that the punishment awarded to the respondent is grossly inadequate. When the Labour Court wanted to interfere with the finding of the employer regarding the punishment, the Labour Court must come to a conclusion that the punishment awarded by the employer was grossly inadequate. The Labour Court must give reasons for coming to the said conclusion when the Labour Court interferes with the punishment awarded to the workman. Without giving any reasons for interfering with the order of punishment and without recording reasons for coming to a conclusion that the punishment was disproportionate to the charges levelled against him then these findings of the Labour Court will be a perverse and grossly erroneous. In the instant case there was misappropriation of 39 coupons meant for physically handicapped persons and the misappropriation was of Rs. 2,375/- by a workman-Conductor who has previously committed 8 defaults by not issuing tickets to the passengers and failing in performance of his lawful duties. Though he was treated very sympathetically and leniently and by taking humanitarian approach, instead of showing improvement, he has committed the same misconduct in question by assuming that he will be treated leniently every time. 2,375/- by a workman-Conductor who has previously committed 8 defaults by not issuing tickets to the passengers and failing in performance of his lawful duties. Though he was treated very sympathetically and leniently and by taking humanitarian approach, instead of showing improvement, he has committed the same misconduct in question by assuming that he will be treated leniently every time. Therefore, in the circumstances the punishment of dismissal from service given by the employer could not be said to be disproportionate to the charges levelled against him so as to interfere with the same by exercising discretionary powers under Sec. 11-A of the i. D. Act. ( 11 ) ). The learned advocate for the respondent has cited before the case of Gujarat state Road Transport Corporation vs. Danaji Sukaji Kodiyar, 1994 (1) GLR 87 . In this case the Division Bench of this Court has held that what punishment should be imposed is ordinarily a question to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case and particularly the individual circumstances of the delinquent concerned. The division Bench of that case was considering the petition filed by the employer in which the award of the Labour Court, Rajkot was challenged. It was also a case of a conductor and the order of dismissal passed against him was interfered by the Labour Court, by ordering reinstatement of him without any back wages without continuity of service. The charge levelled against the workman in that case was that when his bus was checked, it was found that he had not issued tickets to four passengers and there are wrong punching of two tickets. He had put in 11 years of service and no material was produced to show that he was guilty of any misconduct prior to the incident which was the subject matter of the proceedings. Therefore, in view of those facts, and taking into consideration the nature of the charge and past service record of the workman the Labour Court had interfered with the quantum of punishment by giving reasons for interfering with the quantum of punishment. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court refused to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot. Therefore, the facts of the said case are not applicable to the case before me. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court refused to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot. Therefore, the facts of the said case are not applicable to the case before me. In the case of Gujarat State Road Transport corporation vs. K. M. Parmar, 1993 (1) GLR 302 , the following principles are laid down. "under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act the Industrial Tribunal or the labour Court is not having unguided power to set aside the justified order passed by the management. The power under Sec. 11-A has to be exercised judicially and the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court can interfere with the decision of the Management under Sec. 11-A of the Act only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. This Court has repeatedly held that misappropriation, if held established, would be a major misconduct and normally dismissal order passed by the competent authority should not be interfered with by the Labour Court or the Industrial court under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. "in that case the order of dismissal of a conductor from service who had committed misappropriation passed by the employer was interfered with by the Labour Court by its award and the said award was quashed and set aside by allowing the said writ petition by the Division Bench by laying down the above principles. In that case the main charge against the conductor was of misappropriation of Rs. 30/- and other misconducts was of minor nature. But even then the order of dismissal passed by the employer has been upheld. ( 12 ) ). Learned advocate for the respondent has also cited before me the case of ambala Motibhai Patel vs. Hansaben Dinmanishanker Shastri, 1992 Vol. 25 (1) Labour and Industrial Cases in support of his contention that interference with the punishment awarded by the employer by the Labour Court was justified, but the head note of the said case itself will show that the same is not applicable to the facts of the case before me. 25 (1) Labour and Industrial Cases in support of his contention that interference with the punishment awarded by the employer by the Labour Court was justified, but the head note of the said case itself will show that the same is not applicable to the facts of the case before me. The head Note runs as under :"where the School Management did not adduce any evidence before the enquiry Committee, after service of charge-sheet on the Assistant Teacher, in support of charges levelled against him and the management simply produced correspondence between the Assistant Teacher and the School Management and called upon the Teacher to defend and the correspondence was not proved at all and the school Management failed to adduce oral evidence which was necessary to prove the charges levelled against the Teacher, the refusal to grant approval to the proposed action of the management by District education Officer as well as the Tribunal solely on the ground that reasonable opportunity to defend was denied to the Assistant Teacher was proper. " ( 13 ) ). Learned advocate for the respondent has cited before me another case decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Jamunadas Becharbhai, 1982 (2) GLR 557 . He has relied upon this case in support of his submission that if this court comes to the conclusion that he could not be reinstated in the same post of conductor, he may be reinstated in any other post in the workshop or some other post which does not involve daily handling of money. In this case it has been observed as under:"the Court reaffirmed the 9 propositions enunciated in R. M. Parmar vs. Gujarat Electricity Board, Baroda, 23 (1) GLR 352 but elaborated the rider embedded in proposition No. 9 that when an employee holding a sensitive post of trust has been dismissed from service the matter may have to be viewed in a different light. The Court observed that in case of misappropriation by a bus conductor who has collected fare from passengers but has failed to issue tickets, his reinstatement in the same post would enable him to indulge in the same malpractice in future. Every day he has to collect the fare and issue tickets. The Court observed that in case of misappropriation by a bus conductor who has collected fare from passengers but has failed to issue tickets, his reinstatement in the same post would enable him to indulge in the same malpractice in future. Every day he has to collect the fare and issue tickets. Reinstatement in the same post would therefore, involve grave risk because of the repetitive opportunity that he would get to indulge in malpractice and the daily temptation that he would face. Perhaps he would be tempted to repair the past losses and the Corporation would be exposed to the same risk every day and it would make successful working of a Public Corporation impossible, the Labour Court would therefore, have to think more than twice before directing reinstatement in the same post as conductor. In case misappropriation by a conductor is detected and he is found quality, punishment must he deterrent to him as also to other for misappropriation in such circumstances would be in relation to public moneys and the burden would fall on the shoulders of the common man. It must be realised that 80 percent of the total tax burden consists of indirect takes which makes it impossible for the common man to stand erect and virtually makes him crouch on the ground. The Court further observed that there is another tormenting reason for viewing the matter with anxious eyes. The Public Sector can never (NEVER) succeed of everyones property (which it in fact is) is treated as no ones property. The New Culture for the New Man of New India must therefore be National Interest above all other interests including self-interest sectional interest or class-interest above all other interests including self interest sectional interest of class-interest. It is true that big sharks never get caught and if they get caught they more than no escape with impunity. But merely because the court cannot prevent the sharks escaping the court cannot permit the fly to trifle with public property which is the poor mens collective property, the Labour Court can depending upon facts and circumstances of the case and of the offender direct that he should be absorbed in the workshop section or some other similar post which does not involve daily handling of money. "it is true that in this case it has been observed by the Division Bench that if reinstatement is necessary, the reinstatement should be on other post and the Labour court has depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and of the offence directed that he should be absorbed in the workshop section or some other similar post which does not involve daily handling of money. But in the said case it has been also laid down that misappropriation of money by a bus conductor must be viewed seriously as it affects the successful working of a public corporation. The National interest to be kept in mind above all other interest including self interest, sectional interest or class-interest. It has also been observed in the said case that New Culture for the New Man of New India must therefore be the National Interest above all other interests. Now even if the said observations and principles are to be accepted and followed I do not find any material on record to hold that the respondent deserves any reinstatement in service. If the order of the labour Court is seen then it would be quite clear that in the award of the Labour Court has quoted purshis Exh. 9 filed by the respondent extensively. The award of the Labour court does not show that the respondent had shown any repentance for his misconduct and misbehaviour and had not made out and stated any circumstance to justify his reinstatement in service. Therefore, in the circumstances no material was placed during the proceedings before the Labour Court for justifying the reinstatement. On the contrary there was material on record to show that opportunities were given to the respondent to make improvement on previous 8 occasions but he had not shown any improvement. Therefore, in the circumstances I am unable to hold that this is a case in which reinstatement of respondent is to be ordered. ( 14 ) ). Thus I hold that the award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court in perverse and grossly erroneous one and interference with the said award by exercising powers uner Art. 226/227 is called for. I therefore, allow the present petition and the award passed by the Labour Court on 21. 1. ( 14 ) ). Thus I hold that the award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court in perverse and grossly erroneous one and interference with the said award by exercising powers uner Art. 226/227 is called for. I therefore, allow the present petition and the award passed by the Labour Court on 21. 1. 1997 in Reference No. 512 of 1996 is quashed and set aside and that the order of dismissal from service passed against the respondent by the petitioner G. S. R. T. C. is maintained. But in the facts and circumstances of the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. .