JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---A totally illegal, improper and perverse award given by the 4th Labour Court, Thane has given rise to this petition filed by the petitioner being Divisional Controller of the MSRTC. Raigad under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award. 2.I have carefully gone through the proceedings. The facts are as under:- The respondent workman was employed by the petitioner as a conductor for a period of 5 years. He was issued a charge sheet on 23rd October 1986 and was suspended pending the proposed domestic enquiry against him for the charge levelled against him. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the charges were serious as he had re-issued the tickets to the passengers which were already used and issued in the earlier trip. According to the petitioner, obviously, no conductor can indulge into such an act which amounts to dishonesty with the business of the Corporation and misappropriation of the funds and public money. It appears from the record that a regular domestic enquiry was held against him and after issuance of a show cause notice and getting his explanation, he was dismissed from employment on 7th April 1987. In his reply to the charge sheet he had denied the charges. After completion of the departmental appeals which were dismissed by the appellate authorities, he raised an industrial dispute to challenge the aforesaid order of dismissal from employment and prayed for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The said industrial dispute was referred by the State Government under section 10(2) read with section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for adjudication to the Labour Court. Both the parties completed their pleadings and filing of the documents. 3.The petitioner Corporation relied upon the domestic enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The respondent workman did not adduce any oral evidence before the Labour Court. He had filed an application before the Labour Court on 13-10-1993 that he did not want to challenge the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry and that he had admitted the factum of having issued the tickets already issued in earlier trip and that he did not want to lead evidence before the trial Court. He had filed an application before the Labour Court on 13-10-1993 that he did not want to challenge the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry and that he had admitted the factum of having issued the tickets already issued in earlier trip and that he did not want to lead evidence before the trial Court. It further appears from the observations of the Labour Court in para 6 that the workman was also prepared to give up his backwages if reinstatement was granted. It appears from the award that both the parties had relied upon the proceedings of the enquiry and proceeded on the basis of the said documents before the Enquiry Officer. The Labour Court has framed points for determination and has found that the punishment of dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate and that the workman was not entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and/or full backwages. After recording the aforesaid findings against the workman and in favour of the petitioners, I fail to understand how the Labour Court could direct the petitioner to pay the respondent workman compensation at the rate of 15 days wages per year of service. It is found from the record that the respondent workman had admitted his guilt of re-issuance of the used tickets and issued the same to the passengers on his next trip. It is also on record that the respondent workman had not challenged fairness, legality and validity of the enquiry held against him. In the aforesaid circumstances, I fail to understand how the Labour Court could award compensation to such a workman who had committed a serious act of misconduct of re-issuance of the used tickets to the passengers in the second trip. By doing so he has cheated not only the passengers but also the Corporation. It is clear that by reissuing the said tickets he has misappropriated the amount received from such passengers. The public Corporation is meant for public and people. If conductors are allowed to behave in this manner, the Corporation would sustain loss and finally people will suffer as the Corporation would be deprived of revenue. It is clear that by reissuing the said tickets he has misappropriated the amount received from such passengers. The public Corporation is meant for public and people. If conductors are allowed to behave in this manner, the Corporation would sustain loss and finally people will suffer as the Corporation would be deprived of revenue. The Corporation substantially exists on the public revenue and if these employees are allowed to indulge in such serious acts of misappropriation in the trips it would be impossible for the Corporation to run the service for the benefit of the poor people who alone travel by the public buses. 4.I am, therefore, at loss to understand how the Labour Court has tried to put premium on the proved misconduct of the respondent workman by directing the petitioner to pay the respondent workman an amount of compensation to the tune of 15 days wages per year of service. I am, therefore, more than satisfied that the award of the Labour Court is totally improper, illegal and perverse and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The respondent workman having been dismissed from employment and the Labour Court having found against him, he cannot be given bonus of compensation for such an act of misconduct. 5.The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (b) with no costs. Writ petition allowed. -----