N. K. JAIN, C. J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-Management has filed this writ appeal against the order of the learned single judge passed in W. P. No. 7790/1999 dated July 24, 2001 wherein the learned single Judge modified the order of the Labour Court imposing punishment of withholding of four increments. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that on January 30, 1996 the respondent-workman, who is a conductor, was conducting the bus bearing No. MEF 6012 on Kadur-Belagur-Panchanahalli route and the regional line checking Squad intercepted the bus. It was found that about 78 adult passengers were travelling in the bus. Out of them a group of 20 passengers, were neither issued tickets nor fare was collected from them. The Articles of Charge dated February 26, 1996 was issued. Disciplinary Authority initiated an enquiry. On considering the materials and also the fact that the respondent-workman was involved in 14 other default cases, the Enquiry Officer held the respondent-workman guilty of the irregularities of non-issuance of tickets and non-collection of fare. The respondent-workman was dismissed from service by order dated September 30, 1996. The same was challenged by the respondent-workman in the Labour Court. The labour Court on preliminary issue held that the disciplinary enquiry was not fair and proper as charge for past misconduct was not framed and no evidence was taken. However, taking a lenient view the Labour Court directed the appellant-Management to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of seniority and with 50% back wages, from the date of the dismissal till the date of the reinstatement. The same was challenged by the appellant-management in the Writ Petition. The learned single Judge on consideration modified the order of Labour Court directing the appellant-management to continue the services of the respondent-workman pursuant to award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement withholding four increments with cumulative effect and held that the respondent-workman was not entitled to any back wages. Aggrieved, the appellant-Management has filed this writ appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant-Management submits that despite the fact that respondent-workman had not issued tickets to the 20 passengers, which is a serious misconduct, directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman is erroneous. Aggrieved, the appellant-Management has filed this writ appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant-Management submits that despite the fact that respondent-workman had not issued tickets to the 20 passengers, which is a serious misconduct, directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman is erroneous. The court below and the learned single Judge erred in not considering the fact that the respondent- workman is a habitual offender and was found guilty of misconduct in as many as 14 default cases in the past, which as per the Regulations can be considered for awarding punishment. She also submits that once the enquiry officer found, on considering the past conduct of the workman, that the respondent-workman was guilty of misconduct of non-issuance of tickets and non-collection of fare, it was not proper to take a sympathetic view and to direct reinstatement of respondent- workman with 50% of back wages. She further submits that the Court below and the learned single Judge have not considered the decision of the Apex court in Regional Manager, K. S. R. T. C. v. Ghanshyam Sharma 2002-I-LLJ-234 and in karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B. S. Hullikatti 2001 SCC (L and S) 469 : 2001-I-LLJ-725 wherein it was held where the bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a less rate than the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors were not fit to be retained in service because such inaction or action on the part of the conductors results in financial loss to the road Transport Corporation, which has been confirmed by 3 Judges Bench in ghanshyam's case (supra) wherein it is held that at p. 235 of LLJ:"though under Section 11-A, the Labour court has jurisdiction and powers to interfere with the quantum of punishment, however the discretion has to be used judiciously. When the main duty or function of the conductor is to issue tickets and collect fare and then deposit the same with the Road Transport Corporation and when a conductor fails to do so, then it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal. "and set aside the order of the Division Bench and restored the order of the learned single judge setting aside the award. "and set aside the order of the Division Bench and restored the order of the learned single judge setting aside the award. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and also the case cited. ( 5 ) NO doubt, this Court generally does not interfere in the finding of fact arrived and so also under Section 11-A, the Labour Court has jurisdiction and the power to interfere with the quantum of punishment. In the instant case, admittedly, at the time of inspection the checking squad found that 20 passengers in the bus were travelling without tickets and the learned single Judge on considering the material on record has come to the conclusion that the respondent-workman has indulged in the act of pilferage thus ultimately causing loss to the revenue of the Corporation, and modified the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement without back wages and withholding four increments with cumulative effect. ( 6 ) ON consideration, the learned counsel for the respondent- workman has not been able to show us anything contrary to find that he was not indulged in the act of pilferage nor has he challenged the finding at an appropriate time. When a charge is proved, the past misconduct can be taken into consideration as per Regulation 25 of k. S. R. T. C. Servants (C and D) Regulations, 1971, while imposing punishment without giving an opportunity of hearing. In the instant case, it was mentioned in the counter and the same is not rebutted. Therefore, the observation of the Labour Court that in the absence of any charge of past misconduct and evidence, and taking a lenient view, is not proper. Further, once the learned single judge, on the basis of the material on record, came to the conclusion that the workman has indulged in the act of pilferage and thus ultimately causing loss to the revenue of the corporation but still modified the order directing reinstatement without back wages, and with a direction for withholding of four increments with cumulative effect. The same is not proper and sustainable. Once misconduct has been proved and the employer has lost confidence in his workman, to our mind looking to his past conduct the dismissal order cannot be set aside reinstating him invoking section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The same is not proper and sustainable. Once misconduct has been proved and the employer has lost confidence in his workman, to our mind looking to his past conduct the dismissal order cannot be set aside reinstating him invoking section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, once the charge is proved and taking into consideration that the respondent-workman was found guilty of misconduct in 14 cases earlier, we have no option but to hold that the order of the learned single Judge reinstating the respondent disallowing back wages and imposing penalty of withholding of 4 increments with cumulative effect is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. The respondent-workman should be removed from service. ( 8 ) NO other point was raised. ( 9 ) UNDER the circumstances, and in view of what we have discussed above, the order of the learned single Judge as well as the award of the Labour Court is set aside. The order of Disciplinary Authority dismissing the respondent from service is restored. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, Writ Appeal is allowed. --- *** --- .