JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner No. 1 is a statutory Corporation established under the Road Transport Act and is engaged in Transportation of passengers throughout the State of Maharashtra. It is plying buses within and without the State for the benefit and welfare of the public. The petitioner No. 2 is the head of the Pune Division under whom the respondent was employed as a Conductor from 1977. 2.On 27-6-1982 the respondent was on duty on route Pune Depot to Pandharpur and return journey. It appears that while on his return journey on 28-6-1982 the Checking Squad inspected the bus and found that there was discrepancy in the way bills maintained by the respondent-conductor showing the account of sold and unsold tickets of different denomination. It was the report of the checking staff that the respondent Conductor had reissued the sold tickets and that cash was found short to the extent of Rs. 673.85 and further the entries of the sold tickets of the 14 denomination were also not found in the waybill No. 548614 and the corresponding waybill No. 660466. On the basis of the said report submitted by the checking or inspecting staff on 10-8-1982 a charge sheet was issued to the respondent for his acts of misconduct under the head of dishonesty and misappropriation of money of the Corporation etc. A departmental enquiry was held in the charges levelled against the respondent who had participated in the said enquiry. The Enquiry Officer recorded his findings to the effect that the respondent was guilty of the misconduct levelled against him and recommended punishment of dismissal of the respondent from employment. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, he completed his two rounds of internal appeals provided for under the rules. It appears that the respondent did not succeed in the departmental appeals and therefore, he raised an Industrial Dispute against his order of dismissal and prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and continue of service with effect from 20-5-1983. On failure of the conciliation proceedings initiated under section 12(5) r/w section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, his dispute was referred to the Second Labour Court, Pune for adjudication. Both the parties filed their pleadings and the documents on which they had relied upon. On failure of the conciliation proceedings initiated under section 12(5) r/w section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, his dispute was referred to the Second Labour Court, Pune for adjudication. Both the parties filed their pleadings and the documents on which they had relied upon. By his Part-I Award the Labour Court held the domestic enquiry to be violative of the principles of natural justice and quashed and set aside the enquiry and gave an opportunity to the petitioner-Corporation to lead evidence to justify its action of dismissal of the respondent. The Labour Court has found that the findings in respect of charges of Clauses Nos. 10, 11, 12-B, 22, 33, 35-B and 46 to be perverse and as far as the charge in respect of clause 35-B is concerned he held the findings to be legal and proper. Though the Labour Court had afforded an opportunity to the petitioner Corporation to justify its action before the Labour Court it appears that it confined its evidence before the Labour Court only to the extent of the past record of the respondents and no evidence on the point of merits of the charges was adduced. Since the Labour Court had recorded the findings of the Enquiry Officer to be perverse and not the whole enquiry procedurally it appears that the Labour Court took pains to examine for itself the evidence and material on record of the Enquiry Officer and he finally found that the misconduct levelled against the respondent was only partly proved and that the punishment of dismissal was not justified. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusions in respect of the charges the Labour Court after assessing and appreciating the entire material on record awarded reinstatement with 50% back wages to the respondent in exercise of his jurisdiction under Clause (sic section) 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid Award of the Labour Court dated 10-3-1992. The respondent Conductor has however not challenged the said Award and the Order of the Labour Court and appears to have been satisfied with whatever was decided in the reference by the Labour Court. It is significant to note that at the time of admission of the petition the petitioner accepted to reinstate the respondent subject to the decision of this Court finally. This order was passed by learned Single Judge on 7-12-1993. It is significant to note that at the time of admission of the petition the petitioner accepted to reinstate the respondent subject to the decision of this Court finally. This order was passed by learned Single Judge on 7-12-1993. It appears that pursuant to the said order the respondent Conductor has been reinstated from January 1994 and he appears to be in employment of the petitioner. 3.Shri. Vijay Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the Part-II Award on the ground that the respondent Conductor has issued the sold tickets and had indulged in an act of dishonesty and therefore, no reinstatement should be granted. On the other hand Mrs. Doshi for the respondent Conductor has submitted that the Labour Court has itself gone through the enquiry proceedings and has recorded a finding that the said misconducts have not been proved before the Enquiry Officer and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the findings of facts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Secondly she has also submitted that the respondent has not challenged the findings of the Labour Court denying him 50% of back wages though it was held in his favour that except the charge under Rule 35-B no charges were factually proved in the enquiry and that no opportunity was availed of to justify its action before the Labour Court by leading appropriate evidence in the Court. According to her, the respondent has suffered more than sufficient punishment by way of loss of back wages from 20-5-1983 to December 1994 or till his reinstatement, she has computed the period of more than five years as punishment period. She has therefore appealed that whatever lapses were proved against the respondent Conductor he has been punished and that the Labour Court has properly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under section 11(A) of the Act by moulding the relief which was just and proper as found by the Labour Court. In these circumstances, argues the learned Advocate that this Court should not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as there is absolutely no error of facts or law warranting the interference by this Court in its writ or supervisory jurisdiction. In these circumstances, argues the learned Advocate that this Court should not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as there is absolutely no error of facts or law warranting the interference by this Court in its writ or supervisory jurisdiction. 5.As far as the merits of the charges are concerned, the Labour Court has given a fresh look into the evidence and the material on record before the Enquiry Officer. In his detailed discussion in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the Award he has found that the charges held in respect of reselling or reissuing sold tickets have not been substantiated and that there was no evidence or allegations of violation of any Circulars or Orders issued by the Corporation. It appears from the impugned Award that the Labour Court has properly assessed and appreciated the whole material on record and come to its conclusion which does not warrant any interference in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The Labour Court has also found that the respondent Conductor has indeed properly maintained the waybill and that it was an admitted fact that there were some wrong entries made by the Conductor in the waybill. In respect of this findings I am satisfied that the Labour Court is right and there is no error in appreciating and assessing the evidence. It was fairly admitted by the respondent Conductor that there were some entries in the waybill which were wrong and that it happened due to inadvertence. It is further significant to note that no element of dishonesty is shown in committing such mistakes in the entries. I am satisfied that the Labour Court is justified in findings that the respondent Conductor had committed a misconduct under Clause 35-B of the Rules of Discipline and Appeal Procedure. In this background I do not find any error or any justification for me to upset such a finding recorded by the Labour Court which is based on the proper material on record. I, therefore, do not wish to interfere with the findings and conclusions recorded by the Labour Court that the misconducts levelled against the respondent Conductor were partly proved and that the extreme punishment of dismissal was harsh and seekingly disproportionate. The Labour Court has also scanned through the past record of the respondent Conductor. I, therefore, do not wish to interfere with the findings and conclusions recorded by the Labour Court that the misconducts levelled against the respondent Conductor were partly proved and that the extreme punishment of dismissal was harsh and seekingly disproportionate. The Labour Court has also scanned through the past record of the respondent Conductor. His past record reflects certain punishments which are not serious and for which he was suitably punished by stoppage of increments etc. The Labour Court has according to me, fairly assessed the evidence and material on record and has rightly denied by way of punishment 50% of back wages in the given circumstances. It is also worthy to note that the said findings have not been challenged by the respondent Conductor but are accepted by him. 6.In these circumstances I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement with 50% backwages and further punishment of stoppage of two consecutive increments permanently. According to me, this punishment is more than sufficient and needs no interference by me. The Labour Court has rightly and justified exercised its jurisdiction under section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I therefore, hold that the order of reinstatement with 50% of backwages of the respondent conductor is just, legal and proper and the same is confirmed. Rules is discharged with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order is expedited. Rule discharged. -----