A. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocate Shri Hardik Rawal for Mr. K. N. Raval on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent as well as learned Advocate for the respondent Mr. H. B. Parekh absent though called out repeatedly. ( 2 ) ). The petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and order rendered on 30-11-1985 by the learned Presiding Officer. Labour Court. Rajkot, in the proceedings of Ref. (LCR) No. 409 of 1982. ( 3 ) THAT vide impugned award and order, the learned Presiding Officer. Labour court. Rajkot has ordered the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service but without back wages within one month from the date of publication of the award. It is also ordered that in case of default the workman (respondent) shall be entitled to full back wages from the date of default till reinstatement. ( 4 ) ). The respondent was employed by the petitioner as Bus Conductor. That on 28-5-1979, the respondent was on duty in the Bus No. 5280 running on Okha to rajkot route. That the Ticket Inspector with his checking squad checked the said bus at Jamnagar bus stand and found that some of the passengers who have paid the bus fare were issued tickets by the respondent, however, the numbers bearing on the said tickets issued to the passengers were noted by the respondent on motor police warrants carried by some police constables who were also travelling in the said bus from Dwarka to Rajkot. That as per the prescribed procedure, the Conductor has to issue regular ticket to the police constable travelling in the bus and to endorse the number of the said ticket on the motor police warrant carried by the said constable and to deposit such ticket along with the warrant to the department while depositing the cash collected during the trip, so as to enable the department to claim reimbursement of the fare in respect to the journey made by such constable. ( 5 ) ). According to the petitioner on 28-5-1979 the respondent had committed serious misconduct by following irregular procedure endorsing the ticket number of the tickets issued to different passengers on the motor police warrant of three constables who were also travelling in the said bus. ( 5 ) ). According to the petitioner on 28-5-1979 the respondent had committed serious misconduct by following irregular procedure endorsing the ticket number of the tickets issued to different passengers on the motor police warrant of three constables who were also travelling in the said bus. That the department of the petitioner considered the said irregularity committed by the respondent as dishonest practice with intent to misappropriate the bus fares paid by the passengers to him. That accordingly, the respondent was charge-sheeted for the said misconduct and departmental inquiry was held. On conclusion of departmental inquiry the respondent was found guilty of serious misconduct and as such vide order dated 28-2-1980, the respondent was dismissed from service. ( 6 ) ). The respondent preferred two successive appeals with the department of the petitioner against the said order of dismissal but failed and thereafter he raised an industrial dispute for which a Reference was made to the Labour Court. The presiding Officer, Labour Court. Rajkot, on receipt of the claims statement filed by the respondent and reply filed by the present petitioner conducted the trial recording oral evidence as well as taking on record the documentary evidence. On conclusion of trial, the Labour Court on appreciation of material produced before him, came to the conclusion that inquiry held by the department of the petitioner against the respondent cannot be said to be illegal or invalid. The Labour Court also concluded that the respondent-workman had issued tickets to some other passengers and yet mentioned the numbers of the said tickets on the reverse side of motor police warrants of three different constables. However, the said acts of irregularity cannot be said to be dishonesty and misappropriation. That the Presiding officer of the Labour Court held that the workman-respondent was negligent inasmuch as he has noted the numbers of the tickets issued to the other passengers on the motor police warrants carried by three different constables. That the workman-respondent could not collect the tickets issued to the passengers so as to misappropriate the funds of the fare paid by the said passengers and as such misconduct alleged against the workman-respondent cannot be said to be dishonesty and misappropriation but mere negligence. That major punishment could be imposed on the workman if the negligence proved is gross. That the workman-respondent could not collect the tickets issued to the passengers so as to misappropriate the funds of the fare paid by the said passengers and as such misconduct alleged against the workman-respondent cannot be said to be dishonesty and misappropriation but mere negligence. That major punishment could be imposed on the workman if the negligence proved is gross. That on the said reasoning, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot, further held that punishment imposed by the petitioner on the respondent of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved and as such passed the impugned order to reinstate the respondent in the service without back wages. ( 7 ) ). Mr. Hardik Rawal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken me through the impugned award, copy of which is produced vide Annexure "a" on running pages 7 to 13 and has urged that the Presiding Officer of the Labour court has grossly erred in appreciating the evidence produced on record and has based the conclusion on conjectures rather than facts proved on record. It is also submitted that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has erred in holding that alleged acts of irregularity committed by the respondent amounts to negligence and not a dishonest act of attempting to misappropriate funds. That the impugned award being contrary to the proved facts on record and contrary to the law, this Court should set aside the same and quash and uphold the order of penalty imposed on the respondent. ( 8 ) ). That ordinarily, the High Court while exercising the power under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with the orders passed by the tribunal unless there is jurisdictional error or the order is perverse resulting into miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, on careful reading of report of the Inquiry officer placed on record vide Annexure "b" as well as the impugned award, in my opinion, the approach of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot appears to be perverse and contrary to the facts and circumstances proved on record and as such impugned award has caused miscarriage of justice. that thereby interference of this Court is warranted for the reasons stated hereinafter. ( 9 ) ). that thereby interference of this Court is warranted for the reasons stated hereinafter. ( 9 ) ). It is significant to note that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, rajkot has held on evidence that departmental inquiry held against the present respondent by the petitioner was legal and valid. That in paragraph 7 of the award. the learned Presiding Officer has observed that on evidence it is proved that workman-respondent has issued tickets to some other passengers and yet mentioned the numbers of the said tickets on the reverse side of motor police warrants carried by three different constables. Despite finding of such fact, the learned Presiding officer of the Labour Court appears to have erred in holding that such act of irregularity committed by the workman-respondent amounts to negligence and not a dishonest attempt to misappropriate the funds. It is noteworthy that had there been a single incident of issuing ticket to a passenger and noting down the number of the said ticket on the motor police warrant of the constable, the learned Presiding officer could be justified in believing that workman-respondent might have committed an error on account of negligence in noting down the number of the said ticket on the reverse side of the motor police warrant. That in the instant case, there were three different constables along with other passengers travelling on motor police warrant and the respondent had issued n all four tickets to different passengers and had endorsed four different numbers of the said tickets on different motor police warrants carried by the constables. Such act of irregularity. cannot be said to be an error or negligence but leads to an inescapable conclusion that the respondent intended to collect the tickets from the said passengers at the destination and to deposit the same with the department so as to misappropriate and pocket the fare paid by the said passengers during the said trip. ( 10 ) ). That the prevention of an unlawful act or crime by incidental acts or situation per se cannot absolve the culprit from the liability of the acts intended and committed. In the instant case, the respondent did form a dishonest intention to misappropriate the fares paid by other passengers and with that design in mind noted down the numbers of the tickets issued to different passengers on the motor police warrants of different constables. In the instant case, the respondent did form a dishonest intention to misappropriate the fares paid by other passengers and with that design in mind noted down the numbers of the tickets issued to different passengers on the motor police warrants of different constables. It is true that on account of surprise check carried out by the Ticket Inspector and the Special Squad at Jamnagar Bus Stand, the respondent could not collect the ticket issued to the passengers for the purpose of depositing the same with the department to misappropriate the funds and as such technically the offence of misappropriation was not completed. However, the conduct of the respondent could hardly be justified as he formed a dishonest intention to commit a crime of misappropriation, made preparation for the same and attempted to commit the said act. The said conduct on the part of the respondent undisputedly constitutes a serious misconduct and the Inquiry Officer has rightly held the respondent guilty for such misconduct. The conclusion reached by the learned presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot on the said evidence is unsustainable in law on the basis ofabove stated reasoning. ( 11 ) ). That in the matter of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Jamnadas becharbhai, 1982 GLH 1057 : [ 1982 (2) GLR 557 ]. this Court has made following observations which are germane to the point in dispute :"if a bus conductor has been dismissed for misappropriation of fares collected from passengers without issuing tickets to them, his reinstatement in the same post would enable him to indulge in the same malpractice in future. The Labour Court should think more than twice before directing reinstatement in the same post. Misappropriation by a bus conductor would make successful working of a public corporation impossible. 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. In the present case this aspect has not been considered by the Labour Court. " ( 12 ) ). Furthermore, in the matter of gujurut State Road Transport Corporation v. Kachraji Motiji Parmar, ( 1993 (1) GLR 302 ). In the present case this aspect has not been considered by the Labour Court. " ( 12 ) ). Furthermore, in the matter of gujurut State Road Transport Corporation v. Kachraji Motiji Parmar, ( 1993 (1) GLR 302 ). this Court after considering the various decisions of this Court has made material and relevant observation in paragraph 5 as under :"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. 11a 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. 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act. "on the basis of the aforesaid discussion it has to be held that the learned presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot, has not only misread the evidence produced on record but has misdirected himself to the settled proposition of law and as such impugned award is liable to be set aside and quashed. Hence, the award dated 30-11-1985 rendered by the Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Rajkot, in the matter of Ref. (LCR) No. 409 of 1982 is hereby set aside and quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. .