RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned Advocate appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) THE present petitioner has challenged the order dated 13th April, 1999 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (LCA) No. 2170/1994. The learned Judge of the Labour Court has ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service without back-wages and has ordered for stoppage of two increments with future effect. ( 3 ) MR. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Judge of the Labour Court has recorded that the charge of misappropriation was not proved against the petitioner. He also submitted that the respondent-Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (hereinafter referred to as `amts) had filed an Approval Application before the Court, but, the same was withdrawn by the authorities. This shows that the authorities did not have something serious against the present petitioner. Mr. Upadhyay pointed out that it is recorded in the judgement and award of the Labour Court that as the present petitioner had joined new Union and he was about to get the promotion, to see that the petitioner is not given promotion and his juniors are given promotion, who are the members of other three Unions, the petitioner was involved in the present proceedings. ( 4 ) AS against this, Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-AMTS, submitted that the learned Judge of the Labour Court has rightly taken into consideration the factum that the present petitioner did not obey the instructions either of the Checking Squad or the superiors of the petitioner. Not only that, the learned Judge has also taken into consideration the statements of the passengers wherein it is stated that the petitioner did not issue them tickets though they had demanded. Mr. H. S. Munshaw also invited the attention of this Court to the past record of the petitioner. It contains four instances of absence, three instances of theft and twelve instances of general misconduct. He submitted that, therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge does not warrant any interference. Mr. H. S. Munshaw also invited the attention of this Court to the past record of the petitioner. It contains four instances of absence, three instances of theft and twelve instances of general misconduct. He submitted that, therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge does not warrant any interference. ( 5 ) TAKING into consideration the two important aspects of the matter, namely, (i) that out of the charges levelled against the petitioner, only the charge of not carrying out the instructions given by the Checking Staff was proved while other charges were not proved; and (ii) that the Approval Application filed by AMTS was withdrawn. The order of the learned Judge is required to be modified to an extent. Instead of reinstatement without back-wages, it should be with 35% of back-wages. This petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. No order as to costs. .