G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Bangalore metropolitan transport corporation against the order dated February 12, 1998, passed by the learned single judge in W. P. No. 20636 of 1989 affirming the order of the labour court directing reinstatement of the respondent conductor with 50 per cent back wages despite the fact that the charge of misconduct was found established against him. ( 2 ) THE respondent, who is employed as conductor in the appellant-corporation, was found in possession of excess cash of Rs. 23. 30, which was unaccounted, while he was conducting the bus on October 9, 1985. This excess cash was found by the checking officials who checked the cash balance of the respondent conductor. Pursuant to the report of the checking squad, the respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and in the said enquiry the respondent himself had admitted of having excess cash at the time of inspection. ( 3 ) CARRYING of excess cash by a conductor of the appellant-corporation while on duty has been expressly prohibited by corporation's circular, which prescribes that whenever a conductor carries with him more than rupees five, he is required to mention the possession of the same and get it certified by the concerned traffic controller. This circular was issued by the corporation obviously to check pilferage by the conductors, which of late has been noticed as common practice in conducting the buses particularly belonging to public undertakings like the road transport corporation. ( 4 ) SINCE the above charge against the respondent was found well proved, the disciplinary authority subjected the respondent with major punishment of dismissal. Subsequently, a dispute was raised under the Provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the labour court. But the labour court despite holding that the charge was well established directed for reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages by imposing a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect, with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. ( 5 ) IN our considered opinion, once the charge is well established then it lies very much within the domain of the disciplinary authority to impose penalty. ( 5 ) IN our considered opinion, once the charge is well established then it lies very much within the domain of the disciplinary authority to impose penalty. Though on subsequent judicial review, either by the labour court or by this court, the same may be viewed to be excess but so far as the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority is concerned, it cannot be said to be without jurisdiction rendering the punishment of dismissal as non est in law, entitling the employee to back wages either full or partial. ; awarding of back wages for a period for which the employee had not worked can only be looked as rewarding him for his misconduct. Passing of any such order will clearly be detrimental to the public interest, apart from being contrary to the doctrine of "no work no pay" as enunciated by the Supreme Court though slightly in a different situation. In the case of mukund engineering works V. Bansi Purushotham, 1994 supp. (2) SCC 725 : 1995-ii-llj-62, it has been held by the ' Supreme Court that in the case of a proved misconduct, the workman can be granted either the back wages or reinstatement and not both. ( 6 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order of the learned single judge and modify the award of the labour court to the extent it has directed for payment of 50 per cent back wages for the period during which the respondent had not worked, by upholding the direction of reinstatement without any back wages, with penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect subject to the condition that the respondent will give an undertaking to the concerned depot manager stating therein that he will not commit misconduct whatsoever in future and the authorities are directed to strictly keep a vigil over him for a period of five years. Similar view has been taken by the division bench of this court in w. a. No. 7169 of 1999 - decided on December 15, 1999. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. No costs. --- *** --- .