ORDER : P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli, dated 31.05.1995 in I.D.No.46 of 1993 modifying the punishment of dismissal into reinstatement with service benefits without backwages, the Management of Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds. 2. According to the petitioner, on 11.06.1992 the second respondent was on duty in the bus bearing Registration No.TN.45/N.0229 plying between Dindingul and Trichy. One of the Junior Superintendent of the Petitioner Corporation travelled in the said bus between Dindigul and Manapparai. He travelled along with his friend and paid Rs.20/- to the second respondent towards fare for both tickets. The fare between Dindigul and Manapparai was Rs.7.40. The second respondent issued two tickets and paid a balance of Rs.5.20 to the Junior Superintendent. On 12.06.1992, the Junior Superintendent verified the tickets which had been issued to him with the counterfoils i.e., the originals written by the Conductor at the Branch Manager's Room. Though he had written correct fare in the tickets, but it had manipulated and corrected the counterfoils as well as the invoice with a dishonest intention as if each ticket was only Rs.3.40 and thereby he accounted for Rs.6.80 and misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.8/-. A charge memorandum dated 12.06.1992 was issued to the second respondent and he offered his explanation by his letter dated 20.06.1992. Since his explanation was not satisfactory, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding the second respondent guilty of the charges framed against him. After considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer and on an independent appraisal, the Management came to the conclusion that the charge against the second respondent has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. A second show cause notice dated 16.07.1992 was issued directing the second respondent to offer his explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The second respondent submitted his explanation by his letter dated 19.07.1992. Since no valid grounds were made out, the second respondent was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the second respondent raised a dispute u/s 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same was taken on the file of the first respondent as I.D.No.46 of 1993. The second respondent submitted his explanation by his letter dated 19.07.1992. Since no valid grounds were made out, the second respondent was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the second respondent raised a dispute u/s 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same was taken on the file of the first respondent as I.D.No.46 of 1993. The Labour Court, by its award dated 31.05.1995 came to the conclusion that the charge against the second respondent had been proved and the enquiry was held fully in accordance with the principles of Natural Justice. After holding that the earlier misconduct did not relate to misappropriation and the second respondent is a married man and a family around him, the Labour Court granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages. Against the said award, the Management has preferred the above writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent. 4. In the light of the fact that the Labour Court has found that the domestic enquiry was fair and reasonable, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into those aspects. The only question to be considered in this writ petition is, whether the Labour Court is justified in modifying the punishment of dismissal into reinstatement with service benefits without backwages by exercising its power u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after drawing my attention to the three reasons given by the Labour Court, would contend that all the three reasons cannot be accepted and the impugned order of the Labour Court is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that in as much as the earlier misconducts did not relate to misappropriation of funds, they are irrelevant for consideration. He also would contend that in as much as the Labour Court has exercised its discretion by invoking Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 7. In view of the limited issue raised, I may straightaway consider the reasoning of the Labour Court in modifying the punishment of dismissal into reinstatement with service benefits but without backwages. 8. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 7. In view of the limited issue raised, I may straightaway consider the reasoning of the Labour Court in modifying the punishment of dismissal into reinstatement with service benefits but without backwages. 8. First, I shall consider the past record of the second respondent. In the counter statement filed before the Labour Court, particularly in paragraph 12, the Management has stated that they had lost faith and confidence on the workman. It is further stated that in the past he had been found guilty, warned, suspended and fined as many as 20 occasions. Apart from this, in the second show cause notice Ex.M.10 they enumerated past events, punishments, etc. Though the Labour Court has considered the penalty imposed on the earlier occasions (numbering into 21), it is stated that they did not relate to misappropriation and they should not have been taken into account in the matter of giving the punishment of dismissal. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before me the details regarding 21 incidents in which the second respondent has been either warned or paid the fine amount. It is also brought to my notice that Serial Nos.12, 13, 16 and 19 relate to misappropriation of the funds of the Transport Corporation. A perusal of those particulars would show that the second respondent accepted all those charges and paid the fine amount as awarded. 10. In this regard, learned counsel for the second respondent would contend that in the absence of any enquiry, the payment of fine or admission of guilt cannot be taken into account in the matter of giving the punishment of dismissal. It is not the case of solitary incident. As referred to in the counter statement as well as in the second show cause notice, the second respondent did involve 21 occasions and in all those cases based on the charge of the Management, after accepting the guilt, the second respondent paid the fine amount. After going through those details, I am of the view that the Labour Court has committed an error in holding that those charges cannot be characterised as misappropriation. Having found that the second respondent has committed misconduct by misappropriating the amount of Rs.8/- belonging to the Transport corporation, in the absence of adequate and acceptable reasons, the Labour court has no power to reduce the punishment. Having found that the second respondent has committed misconduct by misappropriating the amount of Rs.8/- belonging to the Transport corporation, in the absence of adequate and acceptable reasons, the Labour court has no power to reduce the punishment. No doubt, Section 11A enables the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to impose lesser punishment in liew of discharge or dismissal depending on the circumstances of the case. Undoubtedly, the Labour Court is expected to give adequate reasons for such a conclusion. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the decision of mine reported in Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court and Another, (2002) 93 FLR 456, vehemently contended that the Labour Court has committed an error in modifying the punishment without any acceptable reason. In that decision, I had an occasion to consider similar question. After considering various decisions of Supreme Court and the power of interference in the matter of punishment u/s 11A of the Act, I have held that since the employer-Transport Corporation is entirely depending on the conduct of Conductor in collecting fares from the passengers and depositing them with the concerned Officer, it is the responsibility of the Conductor of the bus to collect fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Officers. He acts in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly he does not collect any fare or any correct amount of the fare from the passengers. After holding so, I have held that dismissal from service would be a proper punishment. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has held that in case of proved misappropriation, it is immaterial to consider the past record. The said decision of mine is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, I am unable to accept the first reason given by the Labour court for modifying the punishment. 11. The second reason given by the Labour Court is that the second respondent Conductor was a married man having a family. In a case of proved misconduct, particularly for misappropriation of money, the question of married or other aspects are irrelevant. In this regard, it is relevant to note the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of SRI GOPALAKRISHNA MILLS PVT. LTD V. LABOUR COURT 1980 1 L.L.J 425. In a case of proved misconduct, particularly for misappropriation of money, the question of married or other aspects are irrelevant. In this regard, it is relevant to note the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of SRI GOPALAKRISHNA MILLS PVT. LTD V. LABOUR COURT 1980 1 L.L.J 425. In that case, rejecting similar contention, their Lordships have held that " When a workman is charged for a serious misconduct as in this case, one cannot go by the number of years of service put in by the workman or by the workman or by his age or by his married or unmarried status. If an unmarried worker is entitled to seek lenience in the matter of punishment as has been held by the Labour Court, a worker who is married and has children to support is equally entitled to claim leniency. This will lead to a situation that all workmen whether married or unmarried can claim leniency." In the light of the said decision, the second reasoning of the Labour court also cannot be sustained. 12. The other reason given by the Labour Court for reduction of the punishment is that the amount misappropriated is only Rs.8/-. This Court as well as Apex court have held that quantum of the amount is immaterial. I have already referred to the fact that in the past record, among 21 incidents, the workman had involved in four cases relating to misappropriation of Corporation money. In such circumstance, whether the amount involved is more or less, is immaterial. The said reasoning also cannot be sustained. 13. In the light of what is stated above and in my considered opinion, the order of dismissal should not have been modified by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.05.1995 made in I.D.No.46 of 1993 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.