CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal, the North West Road transport Corporation had challenged the common order dated March 18, 1998 in W. P, no. 1867/1998 c/w. W. P. No. 5613/1998 passed by the learned single Judge in so far as the same related to the second Writ Petition. When the first Writ Petition was filed by the respondent-workman, the second Writ Petition was filed by the appellant-North West Road transport Corporation (henceforth in brief referred to as 'appellant-employer' ). ( 2 ) IN filing the second Writ Petition before the learned single Judge, the appellant- employer had challenged the order dated July 19, 1997 in KID. No. 81/1996 passed by the labour Court, Bijapur, for, in passing the same, the Labour Court while setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent-workman, it had directed the appellant-employer to reinstate the respondent-workman with 50% back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. As against that order, the appellant-employer had challenged the same before the learned single Judge in the above writ petition and the learned single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition, partially modified the above order of the Labour Court to the extent of reducing the grant of back wages only to an extent of 25% and further directed the appellant-employer to reinstate the respondent-workman within two months from the date. ( 3 ) SMT. Zafrullah had taken us through the facts of the case and further the impugned order under challenge. It was argued by her that both the Labour Court as well as the learned single judge were in error in reinstating the respondent-workman by totally over looking the circumstances that the respondent- workman was a default sheeter in the matter of pilfering the fare collections very well evidenced by Exs. M. 11 and 12 and further that the said piece of evidence had remained totally unchallenged and the said fact was not disputed by the respondent-workman. Smt. Zafrullah had placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the case: 1. 1979 SC page 1022. 2. 1997 (1) SCC page 970. 3. 1997 (6) SCC page 159. 4. 1997 (11) SCC page 370. 5. AIR 1998 SC page 57. 6. 1998-I-LLJ-264 7. Order in BMTC v. Kempanna and another, W. A. No. 4314/1998 dated october 23, 1998. 1979 SC page 1022. 2. 1997 (1) SCC page 970. 3. 1997 (6) SCC page 159. 4. 1997 (11) SCC page 370. 5. AIR 1998 SC page 57. 6. 1998-I-LLJ-264 7. Order in BMTC v. Kempanna and another, W. A. No. 4314/1998 dated october 23, 1998. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel, Sri Prabhulinga k. Navadagi, appearing for the respondent-workman on the other side supported the impugned order passed by the learned single judge. He had also submitted that even the labour Court in passing the award had also set aside the order of dismissal passed by the appellant-employer and further directed reinstatement of his party with 50% back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. He had also submitted that the respondent-workman had. since been reinstated into service of the appellant- employer. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned single judge is just and proper and not called for to be interfered with by this Bench, more so, when the respondent-workman is already in service of the appellant-employer. He had also added that even this Court were to confirm the order of the appellant-employer in allowing the appeal that would workout hardship to his party. ( 5 ) WE have carefully considered the above arguments advanced by the rival parties. . On the evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent-workman is a default history sheeter inasmuch as he had involved himself in as many as 23 cases of pilferages. The appellant-employer had also proved that case by producing documentary evidence in Exs. M11 and M12 and further more the said factual position had not been disputed by the respondent-workman. ( 6 ) IN the said circumstances, we are at loss to understand as to how the Labour Court had ordered for reinstatement of the respondent-workman together with continuity in service with back wages to an extent of 50% and further more how the learned single Judge had confirmed that order even by enhancing, the back wages from 50% to 75% in disposing of the Writ Petition. ( 7 ) IT appears to us in the facts and circumstances that the history sheeter by indulging the pilferages of the money collection as that of the respondent-workman had been granted with bonus by an act of reinstatement together with grant of back wages as above and continuity of service. ( 7 ) IT appears to us in the facts and circumstances that the history sheeter by indulging the pilferages of the money collection as that of the respondent-workman had been granted with bonus by an act of reinstatement together with grant of back wages as above and continuity of service. We do not contribute to that view of the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge, for, the respondent- workman had been forced upon the appellant- employer when it did not want him in service having lost confidence in him in the matter of his discharge of duty as a Conductor of the bus. ( 8 ) IN this context, it is relevant to point out that the Apex Court in the case of Janatha bazar (South Kanara Central Co- operative wholesale Stores Limited) and others v. Secretary, Sahakari Naukarara Sangha and others, AIR 2000 SC 3129 : 2000 (7) SCC 517 : 2000-II-LLJ-1395, almost in similar circumstances held that a proven case of misappropriation does not call for any judicial review of the punishment under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the labour Court under Section 11-A of the industrial Disputes Act cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the employer when misconduct is proved in domestic inquiry and is also upheld by it by showing sympathy. ( 9 ) IN yet another case reported in , wherein the two Judges Bench of this Court (presided over by first of us in another combination) had made the following observation in last para: the same reads as hereunder:"the observation of the Supreme Court, a gist of which has been reproduced above, would apply to the facts of this case as well. Non-issuance of tickets after collecting fare and failure to issue tickets and collect the fare from the passengers has to be attributed to either gross negligence or dishonest intention of the appellant. The charges levelled against the appellant therefore stood proved. In the face of proven charge, the only punishment as per the order of the single Judge suffered by the appellant is denial of back wages. We have our doubts as to whether the denial of back wages by itself would be a punishment in a case where the charge of misappropriation stands proved. In the face of proven charge, the only punishment as per the order of the single Judge suffered by the appellant is denial of back wages. We have our doubts as to whether the denial of back wages by itself would be a punishment in a case where the charge of misappropriation stands proved. We refuse to record a positive finding at this stage as the Corporation has not filed any appeal against the order of the single Judge. Appellant would not be entitled to back wages where the charge of misappropriation is proved. He cannot be rewarded with wages without having worked. It would be like showing a thumb to employer; '. . . . . . although you have proved the charge, but still here I come with the order of reinstatement in service with continuity and back wages'. It would breed indiscipline in the service and the Courts cannot be a party to the breeding of indiscipline amongst the employees. A case for interference with the order of the single judge at the instance of the appellant in any case is not made out. " ( 10 ) THE above observation was made by the Bench in view of what was held by the supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State road Transport Corporation v. B. S. Hullikatti, 2000-I-LLJ-725. In the said case, the Supreme Court held as hereunder at p. 726 of LLJ:"that short-charging of fare from as many as 35 passengers to the tune of 50 paise must have been to get financial benefit by the conductor. This act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a Conductor because such action or inaction of his is bound to result in financial loss to the appellant-Corporation. " ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent-workman, Sri Navadagi, had also argued that in the event the order of dismissal passed by the appellant-employer were to be held good by this Court in allowing the instant appeal, the same would cause hardship and ruination of his party, for the appellant- employer had already reinstated his party into service in view of the order passed by the learned single Judge in confirmation of the order passed by the Labour Court in the matter of his reinstatement. To some extent, Sri navadagi is right in making that submission, nevertheless, this will not deter us, from setting aside the order of the Labour Court as well as the order of the learned single Judge, for, the appellant-employer had proved to the hilt that the respondent-workman was not only guilty of the charges. Besides he was a history sheeter inasmuch as he had involved himself in 23 cases of pilferages in the earlier occasions and such a workman, in our view, is a bane and liability to the appellant-employer and such workman cannot be reinforced into services of the appellant-employer to its peril. Therefore, in our considered view, the appellant-employer had rightly terminated the services of the respondent-workman. It appears that the appellant-employer did not repose confidence in him to continue in its service. ( 12 ) IN that view of the matter, we pass the following: order i ). The impugned order dated July 19, 1997 in KID. No. 81/96 passed by the Labour court, reinstating the respondent-workman into service of the appellant-employer and further the common order dated March 18, 1998 inw. P. No. 1867/1998c/w. W. P. No. 5613/1998 in so far as the same related to w. P. No. 5613/1998 confirming the order of the Labour Court are set aside; in the process, the order dated January 23, 1996 passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the appellant-employer dismissing the respondent-workman stands restored to the benefit of the appellant-employer, no matter that it is to the total disadvantages of the respondent-workman. ii) The appellant-employer is at liberty to recover the back wages, if any paid to him in view of the reinstatement under the impugned order of the learned single Judge, from his service benefits due. ( 13 ) THE appeal therefore stands allowed in the above terms. --- *** --- .