H. K. RATHOD, J. ( 1 ) MR. H. C. RAVAL, Learned Advocate for the petitioner Corporation is present. Though served, the respondent has not appeared before this Court. ( 2 ) THE facts of the present case in short are that the respondent was working as Conductor with the petitioner Corporation and during the course of his duty as such, while he was on duty on the route between Ambaji to Sidhpur on 23. 4. 81, his bus was checked by the Checking Staff and it was found that he had collected fare from 5 passengers of 2 groups travelling from Ambaji to Danta but had not issued tickets to those passengers till the checking point. The way bill was found to have been closed. A regular departmental inquiry was held against him and after the departmental inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service by order dated 8. 2. 1982. The said action of the Corporation was challenged by the respondent workman before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad by filing Reference No. 1626/84. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad under his judgement and award dated 31. 5. 86 set aside the impugned order of dismissal and directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the workman with continuity of service but without backwages. Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned order passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner Corporation has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the respondent workman has submitted pursis and thereby he has admitted the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry initiated against him and no oral evidence was laid by either side before the Labour Court. The petitioner Corporation has produced the papers of departmental inquiry vide Exh. 7. Thereafter, considering the evidence on record and considering the gravity of misconduct, the Labour Court came to a conclusion that the impugned order of punishment is harsh, unjustified and disproportionate to the guilt established against the workman and therefore the Labour Court set aside the impugned order of punishment while directing the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the workman in service with continuity of service but denied back wages for the intervening period. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Raval, the Learned Advocate for the petitioner Corporation. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Raval, the Learned Advocate for the petitioner Corporation. He has submitted that the Labour Court has committed error in reinstating the workman. He has pointed out that the misconduct committed by the respondent workman relates to dishonesty and misappropriation of the funds of the Corporation and therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the workman. He has submitted that the Labour Court has erred in holding that the punishment imposed upon the workman is harsh and unjustified. According to him, in view of the charge levelled against the workman, more so since the same has not been challenged or denied by the workman, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the punishment imposed upon the workman. He has submitted that the Labour Court has erred in exercising the powers vested in it under Section 11 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has committed the error which is apparent on the face of record. ( 5 ) I have considered the averments made in the petition. I have also considered the submissions made by Mr. Raval. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is the duty of the petitioner Corporation to consider the cases of the workmen with great care and caution. The Disciplinary Authority should reserve the punishment of dismissal only in extreme cases. It is where the exercise of discretion by the Disciplinary Authority steps in. It cannot and should not act like a Robot, its justice should be moulded with humanism and understanding. It should really access each case on its own merits. ( 6 ) IN this case, the misconduct for which the extreme punishment visited the worker is causing a very negligible loss to the employer. A serious question that arises in such cases would be, besides the legality of the punishment, the morality of imposing such a severe punishment as well. While imposing a punishment the employer should first consider whether the delinquent committed the offence with intent to make unlawful gain and to pilfer the revenue of the employer. Was it with intention to gain 7. 25 paise that the worker committed the present misconduct? Was he is such a depraved circumstances that he desired to make an illegal gain of a trivial amount of 7. 25 paise? Was it with intention to gain 7. 25 paise that the worker committed the present misconduct? Was he is such a depraved circumstances that he desired to make an illegal gain of a trivial amount of 7. 25 paise? What was the number of passengers travelling in the bus and is it possible that he would have accidently omitted to issue tickets? Is it not possible that while he was in the process of issuing tickets, some persons have boarded the bus? Several cases we come across, such omission takes place in buses loaded with more than the permitted number of passengers. Such may be cases of human error committed by the Conductor while issuing tickets to passengers much more than the permitted number. The disciplinary authority should keep in mind all facts of the problem before it awards the extreme penalty of dismissal. ( 7 ) A misconduct like the above on several instances is not committed insistentionally. It is to much to imagine that a worker would have omitted to issue tickets deliberately to gain of rupees at the risk of his job. More often, it is due to the crowd in the bus that he misses to issue tickets than a desire by him to gain few rupees. The castastrophe that may befall is more serious than what is sought to be prevented. First it visits the employee. He is rendered jobless. If generates a litigation which in the present pattern spreads over years producing ultimately a disgruntled employee. Actually the real victim of any such punishment is the family of the worker whose bread winner is jobless. The future is rendered bleak to them and it in its turn causes greater hardship to the society than it intended to cure. ( 8 ) THAT apart, the management also shares the losses in another way. When the worker is dismissed, someone else will have to be placed in his place to discharge the duties. And if the worker is ordered to be reinstated ultimately with back-wages, virtually there will be double payment i. e. two persons, would have to be paid for a single job. In the case of a public sector undertaking, the loss is passed on to the common man, the tax payer. And if the worker is ordered to be reinstated ultimately with back-wages, virtually there will be double payment i. e. two persons, would have to be paid for a single job. In the case of a public sector undertaking, the loss is passed on to the common man, the tax payer. ( 9 ) THE question than would be in the case of a conductor (as in the instant case) who has a past history, should the employer ignore the same? This is a case, the remedy for which the employer himself should discover and the solution is not far to discover. In the case of a ticketless traveller the management has designed a method to curb the same by imposing fine on them. The object with which this is done is so that he may not repeat travelling in the bus without tickets. This method can certainly be considered of imposing of penalty on the Conductor himself which is discovered to be intentionally pilfering the revenue of the Corporation. ( 10 ) WE may notice that in all these cases of non-issue of tickets, we may take note of the fact that there are two parties joining to commit the misconduct, i. e. the Conductor and the passenger. If the Conductor wants to make an unlawful gain, than he has to collect the fare and fail to issue tickets. In such an event, the passenger who boards the bus must co-operate with the Conductor. If he has to co-operate, than he should be familiar to the Conductor and he should agreed to be a party to commit the misconduct at the risk of paying penalty in the event of being caught by the Inspecting Staff. It is too much to imagine that the conductor will hatch a conspiracy to pilfer revenue of the Corporation as and when stray passengers board the bus at various stages. If the Conductor wants to make an illegal gain by the omission to issue tickets, the passenger has to be condescending party. This is really unlikely. Hence, the benefit of doubt in cases of stray lapses should be that the omission to issue tickets may be accidental. ( 11 ) HENCE, the disciplinary authority should reserve the punishment of dismissal only in extreme cases. It is where the exercise of discretion by the disciplinary authority steps in. This is really unlikely. Hence, the benefit of doubt in cases of stray lapses should be that the omission to issue tickets may be accidental. ( 11 ) HENCE, the disciplinary authority should reserve the punishment of dismissal only in extreme cases. It is where the exercise of discretion by the disciplinary authority steps in. It cannot and should not act like a robot, its justice should be moulded with humanism and understanding. It should really assess each case on its own merit. The fact that on a past occasion the delinquent might have acted in a particular manner does not mean that on the particular occasion as well he would have acted with intent to cause loss to the employer. Each set of facts should be decided with reference to evidence regarding the said allegations and those allegations should be on the basis of the decision. May be, the past conduct of the worker may be a ground to assume that the delinquent may have had propensity to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of punishment to be imposed. But that by itself cannot provide any foundation to hold that the present conduct of the worker is a misconduct. ( 12 ) THE respondent workman was on duty on 23. 4. 81 on route from Ambaji to Danta and his bus was checked by the checking staff and it was found that from some passengers he had collected fares at the rate of Rs. 1. 45. 00 ps. who were travelling from Ambaji to Danta but has not issued tickets till the checking point and it was reported that he had misappropriated the amount of Rs. 7. 25 ps. in all. Now, if his past record is examined, it appears that some similar type of misconduct was committed by him in the year 1972 and except that it does not appear that he had committed such type of misconduct. Thus, there was only one default committed by the respondent workman of similar nature in past. The Labour Court has taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter while passing the impugned award. The Labour Court has also taken into consideration the span of 16 years of service of the respondent workman. Thus, there was only one default committed by the respondent workman of similar nature in past. The Labour Court has taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter while passing the impugned award. The Labour Court has also taken into consideration the span of 16 years of service of the respondent workman. Keeping in view long duration of service, and misconduct committed by the workman as also the quantum of punishment, Labour Court in exercise of powers under Section 11 (A) of the I. D. Act found that the punishment imposed upon the workman is harsh and excessive. Mr. Raval has not been able to point out any infirmity in the impugned award. He has also not been able to point out any jurisdictional error committed by the Labour Court. This Court, while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot reappreciate the findings unless the same are perverse or illegal. This Court cannot act as an appellate Court while exercising such powers as per the decision reported in 1998 (1) GLR, Page 17 and AIR 1998 SC Weekly Pg. 1840. I do not find that the Labour Court has committed any error which is apparent on the face of record. Therefore, considering all these aspects of the matter, the view taken by the Labour Court appears to be just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is required to be dismissed. ( 13 ) IN the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No orders as to costs. .