ORDER Chidananda Ullal, J.—This appeal is filed by the employer-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, subsequently North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, to challenge the order dated October 17, 2000 in Writ Petition No. 34801/1998 passed by the learned single Judge, in passing whereof, the learned single Judge confirmed the order of the Labour Court to reinstate the respondent-workman together with 50% back wages in upsetting the order of the appellant-employer to dismiss him from service on the findings of the domestic enquiry. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant-NEKRTC (henceforth in brief referred to as 'Employer'), Sri P.R. Ramesh argued that the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge were in error in reinstating the respondent-workman by overlooking the evidence on record that the respondent-workman was guilty of non-issuance of tickets to 21 passengers, despite collecting the fares from them. It was pointed out by him that in reinstating the workman together with 50% back wages stands granted with premium to the respondent-workman. He had also drawn our attention to the reported decision of the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, AIR 2001 SC 930 . It was also argued by Sri Ramesh that in proved case of misappropriation, exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act in the matter of judicial review of the punishment imposed is not permissible. He further argued that the Supreme Court had also observed that uncalled for sympathy as basis for reinstatement by the Labour Court to substitute the penalty imposed by the employer when misconduct is proved in the domestic enquiry is not tenable. According to him, the said case is totally applicable to the instant case in hand. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman, Sri Vigneshwara S. Shastry, on the other side supported the orders passed by the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge. According to him, the same is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not called for to be interfered with in entertaining the appeal. 4. We have carefully applied our mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. According to him, the same is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not called for to be interfered with in entertaining the appeal. 4. We have carefully applied our mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not in dispute before us that the respondent-workman was guilty of non-issuance of tickets to 21 passengers despite the fares had very well been collected by him and therefore it is not out of place to observe that the respondent-workman was guilty of making illegal gain at the cost of his employer. On reading of the impugned order of the learned single Judge as well as the order passed by the Labour Court that was under challenge before him were in fact by exercising the judicial review of the punishment imposed on the respondent-workmen under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and because of that, the; punishment of dismissal from service by the appellant-employer was substituted by lesser punishment of reinstatement into service by grant of one half of the back wages to him. 5. In this context, it is relevant to observe here that in a subsequent judgment reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, AIR 2001 SC 930 , the Supreme Court yet again held that the punishment of dismissal for proven cases of guilt of making financial gain at the cost of the employer is not fit to be retained because such action or inaction on his part results in financial loss to the employer as that of the appellant-Corporation herein. In the said decision, the Supreme Court held as hereunder: "The respondent had been in service as a conductor for nearly 22 years. It is difficult to believe that he did not know what was the correct fare which was to be charged. The principle of res ipsa loquitur, namely, the facts speak for themselves is clearly applicable in the instant case. Charging 50 paise per ticket less from as many as 35 passengers could only be 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." 6. 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." 6. Therefore, in our considered view, both the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge were in error in ordering for reinstatement with lesser back wages of 50%, we so hold by following the Supreme Court decision referred to above. 7. In view of the above conclusion we have reached, we have no go than to set aside the orders of the Labour Court as well as that of the learned single Judge herein impugned in upsetting the order of dismissal passed by the appellant-employer, we order accordingly. In that process, the order of the appellant-employer dated March 29, 1995 dismissing the respondent-workman from service stands restored. 8. The appeal therefore stands allowed.