RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `g. S. R. T. C. ) challenging the judgement and award dated 3rd January, 2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, in Reference (IT) No. 162/1993, whereby the learned Judge has quashed the punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority of putting the respondent-workman on the minimum pay scale on the post of Conductor. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent-workman was found to have indulged in the financial irregularities and misappropriation on 25th October, 1999, by reissuing the tickets, which were issued by the respondent-workman on the earlier day. The details are set out by the learned Judge in his judgement and award. The charges against the respondent-workman having been proved, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal of the respondent-workman. However, the first Appellate Authority, taking into consideration long service of 16 years and the fact that there was no serious offence committed by the workman earlier, reduced the punishment of dismissal by putting the respondent-workman on minimum pay-scale of the post of Conductor for a period of five years. The intervening period was ordered to be treated as leave without pay. It was against this order of the Appellate Authority that the Reference was made wherein the impugned judgement and award came to be passed. ( 3 ) CURIOUSLY enough, the defence of the Conductor is that, the G. S. R. T. C. has not disproved a fact that the passenger, from whom the tickets in question, which are alleged to have been reissued by the respondent-workman, had not travelled in the bus of the respondent-workman on the day, on which these tickets must have been issued in regular course. Further, the passengers are also not examined by the S. T. Corporation. According to Mr. G. K. Rathod, learned Advocate for the respondent-workman, it is must to prove the case of misappropriation against the respondent-workman. The submission of Mr. Rathod cannot be accepted as it does not appear to be enough for acceptance. ( 4 ) MR. Rathod also submitted that there were procedural defects in the procedure followed by the checking party. The checking party did not examine the cash of the respondent-workman. Mr. The submission of Mr. Rathod cannot be accepted as it does not appear to be enough for acceptance. ( 4 ) MR. Rathod also submitted that there were procedural defects in the procedure followed by the checking party. The checking party did not examine the cash of the respondent-workman. Mr. Rathod submitted that there is no sufficient evidence on the basis of which the charges against the respondent-workman could have been held proved. When the Appellate Authority has found the defence of the workman to be acceptable, there is no reason, why the same should not be held to be acceptable by the Labour Court. The submission of Mr. Rathod is devoid of any merit inasmuch as the order of the Appellate Authority is produced at Annexure-D, page-23, to this petition, in which not a word is found that the defence of the respondent-workman was found acceptable by the Appellate Authority and that, the Appeal was allowed on that ground. On the contrary, from the order of the Appellate Authority, it is clear that the Appellate Authority granted indulgence due to long service of the respondent-workman and also on the ground that in the past, there was no serious offence registered against the respondent-workman. The indulgence shown by the Appellate Authority cannot be argued as estoppel against the authority. Now when the petitioner-Corporation has come to this Court challenging the award of the Labour Court, it cannot be said that the Corporation is debarred from challenging the award of the Labour Court. ( 5 ) MR. Rathod has also submitted that putting the respondent-workman on minimum pay scale to the post of Conductor for a period of five years, is the second major punishment next to dismissal and therefore, the same should not have been awarded. He is not able to point out any reason for which it can be argued that the said punishment was disproportionate. The Labour Court has in terms recorded that, `from the statements of the passengers, which were recorded, it was clear that the said passengers were given the same tickets by the conductor while in the trip. The Labour Court also could not have come to the conclusion that the penalty imposed by the first Appellate Authority is excessive. Therefore, the learned Judge of the Labour Court has erred in quashing the said punishment. The Labour Court also could not have come to the conclusion that the penalty imposed by the first Appellate Authority is excessive. Therefore, the learned Judge of the Labour Court has erred in quashing the said punishment. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed and the judgement and award of the Labour Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the punishment awarded by the Appellate Authority is restored. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. .