JUDGMENT The petitioners have sought the quashing of order dated 11.10.96 (Annex. P/1) passed by the Industrial Court of M.P. Bench Gwalior and dismissal of the application for reinstatement filed by respondent (Annex. P/2). The claim of the petitioners is that respondent No. 1 was employed as a driver with the petitioners. On 15.2.1979, he was carrying a Barat in the bus of the Corporation from Gwalior to Porsa. He was required to leave the Barat Party at Porsa and to bring the bus back. After leaving the Barat party at Porsa and while he was returning, he illegally boarded 21 passengers without any charge and obtained fare from them. These passengers boarded from different places. Thus, he committed a major misconduct. Admittedly, enquiry was held. Charges were proved and by order dated 5.8.1981, he was dismissed from service. The respondent No. 1 challenged the order of dismissal before the Labour Court under sections 31, 61 and 62 of M.P. Industrial Relations Act vide Annex. P/2. The petition was contested and the learned Labour Court quashed the proceedings of the departmental enquiry vide order dated 17.6.1985 and the petitioners were directed to lead evidence on the question of mis-conduct. Thereafter vide order dated 29.11.1986, the Labour Court dismissed the application for reinstatement vide Annexure P/41. An appeal was preferred before the Industrial Court against the said order, which was allowed by the order dated 11.10.96. It is this order, which has been challenged by the petitioners in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The contesting respondent No. 1 has filed a return admitting most of the facts relating to his appointment and work as a driver. The fact that he was to take bus No. 7440 from Gwalior to Porsa has not been disputed too. He, however, claimed that while he was returning from Porsa on 15.2.79, some passengers of the same 'barat' forcibly entered into the bus to travel upto Morena, There was no Conductor in the bus to check the passengers or to issue ticket to those passengers who forcibly entered in the bus. He denied to have permitted any passenger to enter in the bus on his way back to Gwalior. He claimed that he did not commit any major misconduct. The Labour Court wrongly held him guilty of major misconduct. He denied to have permitted any passenger to enter in the bus on his way back to Gwalior. He claimed that he did not commit any major misconduct. The Labour Court wrongly held him guilty of major misconduct. The petitioners prepared a false case against him and the order dated 29.11.1986 has rightly been set aside by the Industrial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued vehemently that the Industrial Court committed an error in setting aside the cogent reasons given by the Labour Court. The learned counsel urged that there was a specific finding that while the bus in question was being driven by respondent No. 1, 21 passengers were found by the checking staff to be travelling in the bus without, tickets. Respondent No. 1 committed grave misconduct and this fact has specifically been proved, which could not be interfered with. Held : In the present case, the Industrial Court simply observed that the Labour Court did not consider the quantum of punishment and as such in exercise of power under section 170A set aside the order of termination and directed the reinstatement without back wages looking to the facts of the case and the circumstances under which the punishment was awarded and the fact that the learned Industrial Court has itself not given reason whatsoever for setting aside the order of termination. I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Industrial Court suffers from grave error. If an employee is found to have committed a grave misconduct and similarly placed other employees have been terminated and the termination has been upheld by this Court as well. It cannot be said that it will be in the interest of justice to set aside the order of dismissal and reinstate such a person, who was found to be guilty of grave misconduct, The Industrial Court, therefore, committed an error in setting aside the order of dismissal. I, therefore, allow the petition. Set aside the order of Industrial Tribunal and restore the order passed by the Labour Court. Costs shall, however, remain easy. AIR 1984 SC 38 and AIR 1989 SC 149 discussed.