Judgment 1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India, is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated October 21, 1982, whereby Pepsu Road Transport corporation, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as prtc) has been directed to give fresh appointment to Makhan Singh respondent No.2 without any benefit of his previous service. 2. Makhan Singh-respondent No.2 was employed as a Conductor with PRTC, Patiala. He had already put in two years and three months service under the petitioner as a conductor and was drawing Rs.424.60 paise per month by way of wages on February 9, 1980 when his services were terminated on the ground that he was found guilty of defrauding the Corporation to the tune of Rs.92.80 paise by way of bus fare from 32 passengers but not issued the tickets in lieu thereof. A domestic enquiry was ordered in which respondent No.2 was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. He was then dismissed from service by way of punishment. This dismissal gave raise to an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Patiala for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether there has been fair and proper enquiry? 2. Relief. 3. After recording evidence of the parties and going through the enquiry proceedings, it was found that the enquiry was fair and proper but it was observed that the order of dismissal was not justified. Although it was found that the respondent No.2 had not issued tickets to 32 passengers, yet the bus was over crowded and had covered only 4 kilometers when it was checked and thus he could not issue tickets to all the passengers, so, the punishment of dismissal was too severe and disproportionate to the charge proved. By exercising its power under Sec.11-A of the Industrial Disputes act, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal of respondent No.2 and directed prtc to give him fresh employment as a result thereof the punishment stood reviewed to loss of previous service and back wages. It is this award which has been impugned in the present writ petition by the PRTC. 4. It is this award which has been impugned in the present writ petition by the PRTC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the Labour Court had found the workman-respondent No.2 guilty of having not issued tickets to 32 passengers from whom he had collected Rs.92.80 paise, so it was not justified to set aside the punishment awarded to the workman and to order his reinstatement as a fresh appointment without any benefits of his previous service. For this contention, he placed reliance upon three authorities of this Court in the cases reported as State of Punjab V/s. Harjinder Singh 1993 (1)R. S. J.758, State of Punjab through General manager V/s. Punjab Roadways, Batala 1993 (3)R. S. J.476 and Gurmail Singh V/s. Presiding officer, Labour Court, Patiala 1995 (4) R. S. J.264. In the aforesaid authorities, it was held that where a public servant had embezzled an amount then his such a conduct depicts dishonesty and the only justifiable punishment for such misconduct should normally be dismissal. There is no dispute about the propositions of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities. However, in the present case, there are special circumstances. It was observed by the Labour Court that the bus which was going from Nahan to Paunta Sahib had covered only 4 kilometers when it was checked and he could not issue tickets to all passengers although he had collected the money because it was over crowed. This facts shows that he was still in the process of issuing tickets. He may have collected money when the passengers had boarded the bus and could not issue tickets to them when the bus was checked. Keeping in view these circumstances, the Labour Court had rightly taken a lenient view and ordered his fresh appointment under Sec.11-A of the industrial Disputes Act. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also stated that respondent No.2 is still in service as he was reinstated on March 14, 1995 and if the order of fresh appointment is set aside then he would lose his job and his family would suffer. Keeping in view this fact also/1 do not consider it proper to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the constitution. 6. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed.