ORDER 1. The petitioner, M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') by the instant petition has challenged the order dated 22.3.1996 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Court and the order dated 16.2.1989 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior. 2. First respondent was working as an Assistant Mechanic in the Corporation. It is alleged that on 15th and 16th September, 1985, certain Popular Shaft of the bus bearing registration No. 8003 was replaced by him and according to the rules, he should have deposited the old Popular Shaft in the Department. It is also alleged that he deliberately did not deposit the same, and therefore, committed a major misconduct. Accordingly, a charge sheet dated 3.10.1985 (Annexure P-3) was issued to the respondent-employee and in the said charge sheet, allegations made were that after having repaired the vehicle and after having replaced the Popular Shaft, the old Shaft was not deposited in the office and the first respondent has misappropriated the same. It is contended that he had committed the theft of the aforesaid property. Thereafter, a . departmental enquiry was conducted. Witnesses were examined and the enquiry officer found the respondent-employee guilty of having committed the major misconduct. The services of the respondent-employee were terminated vide the order dated 10.10.1985 (Annexure P-5). 3. The order of punishment imposed was challenged by the respondent-employee by filing an application before the Labour Court, Gwalior under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Labour Court and the issue No.1 was related to the validity of the departmental enquiry conducted by the management. Labour Court found that the departmental enquiry has been validly conducted and consequently, on the basis of the consideration of the evidence and other materials produced in the enquiry, came to the conclusion that the misconduct was committed by the employee. However, taking a sympathetic view of the matter, the quantum of punishment has been altered vide order dated 16.2.1989 (Annexure P-2) and directed for reinstatement with 20% back wages. 5. The Industrial Court, on appeal being filed by the Corporation, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Labour Court vide order dated 22.3.1996 (Annexure P-l). 6. However, taking a sympathetic view of the matter, the quantum of punishment has been altered vide order dated 16.2.1989 (Annexure P-2) and directed for reinstatement with 20% back wages. 5. The Industrial Court, on appeal being filed by the Corporation, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Labour Court vide order dated 22.3.1996 (Annexure P-l). 6. The present petition has been filed by the Corporation assailing the orders passed by the Industrial Court and the Labour Court. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.K. Shrivastava that once the Labour Court and the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the charges of misconduct are proved, there was no occasion for them to have interfered with the quantum of punishment. It is also submitted by him that once the misconduct is proved, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court do not have power to interfere with the quantum of punishment. After referring to provisions of section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947) which is pari materia of section 107-A of the Act of 1960, the ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in such cases where the misconduct pertai ns to theft of property, interference in the order of punishment is not warranted. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) Regional Manager, RSRTC y. Ghanshyam Sharma 2002 LLR 242. (2) M.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Purshotlam Bhargava and others, 2002 LLR 186, rendered by this Court. (3) Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and others v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and others, (2000) 7 SCC 517 . (4) Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti (2001) 2 SCC 574 . 8. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, it is pointed out by the learned counsel• for the petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of the present case where the Courts below found that the misconduct is proved and as the misconduct related to the theft of property of the Corporation, interference in exercise of the powers vested under section 107 - A of the Act of 1960 is not warranted. 9. 9. Per contra, Shri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent employee submitted that the aforesaid sections are specially enacted vesting powers in the Labour Courts to substitute the punishment awarded by the management and impose lesser punishment if warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has also been submitted by him that the provision of section 107-A of the Act of 1960 is in the nature of a special provision giving powers to Labour Courts to substitute the punishment awarded by the employer. It is stated by the learned counsel that once the discretionary power has been exercised by the Labour Court, the same cannot be interfered with in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that unless and until it is shown that the power has been exercised in an arbitrary manner. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Krishna Kumar Tiwari v. MPSRT Corpn. and another, 1993 MPLSR 324 and MPSRT Corporation Ltd. v. Member Judge, State Industrial Court and others, FLR 1998 Volume 78 at page 655. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent employee that in view of the above, no case for interference in the orders of punishment is made out. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The provision of section 107-A of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and the provision of section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are pari materia with each other. 13. Section 107-A of the Act of 1960 deals with the power of a Labour and Industrial Court to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of employee. This provision empowers the Labour Court and the Industrial Court to give such relief to the employee including the award of a lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal in the circumstances of the case. 14. Similar is the provision contained in section 11-A of the Act of 1947. Section 11-A is also worded exactly identical terms. In fact, section 11-A was inserted by Amending Act No. 45 of 1971 with effect from 15.12.1971. The same provision in identical terms was inserted in the Act of 1960 by Amending Act No. 43 of 1981. 15. 14. Similar is the provision contained in section 11-A of the Act of 1947. Section 11-A is also worded exactly identical terms. In fact, section 11-A was inserted by Amending Act No. 45 of 1971 with effect from 15.12.1971. The same provision in identical terms was inserted in the Act of 1960 by Amending Act No. 43 of 1981. 15. Both the aforesaid provisions are exactly similar in nature, and therefore, the question for determination is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court were justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the petitioner by exercising the powers under section 107-A of the Act of 1960. 16. In the order dated 16.2.1989 (Annexure P-2) the Labour Court has held that the departmental enquiry conducted by the management is proper and after upholding the validity of the departmental enquiry in the' penultimate para it is said that the only question now remains with regard to the justification of the punishment imposed by the management. Thereafter, the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the nature of the misconduct, the findings of the enquiry officer and the evidence which has come on record. On the contrary, it has simply held that the respondent employee has a family to support and a sympathetic view should be taken. Accordingly, it has modified the punishment and has said that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, reinstatement with 20% back wages is proper. This view has been upheld by the Industrial Court and in the order dated 22.3.1996 (AnnexureP-1), the Industrial Court has held that the enquiry conducted by the employer was proper and as the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction under section 107-A of the Act of 1960 and as the interference in the punishment has been made because the workman has not deliberately committed the misconduct, therefore, it refuses to interfere in the quantum of punishment. 17. It is surprising that both the Courts below have totally ignored the fact that the allegations against the respondent-employee was that after replacing the Shaft, the old Shaft was not deposited by him with the employer. The case of the employee was that he was carrying the Shaft in a bus and the driver and conductor of the bus were drunken. The case of the employee was that he was carrying the Shaft in a bus and the driver and conductor of the bus were drunken. While travelling in the bus, the respondent/employee went to sleep and during the same time, it was removed by some one. The employee who was entrusted with the property of the Corporation acted in such a manner. If the Shaft was stolen in such a manner, the employee was duty bound to make a report in this regard to the competent authority. Courts below have held that it is only a case of negligence but not a case of misconduct or misappropriate/theft. On the contrary, the records indicate otherwise. The corporation and the enquiry officer have taken note of the fact that if the Shaft was missing in the manner indicated by the employee then the employee should have reported the matter to the competent authority with regard to the theft of the property of the Corporation. On the contrary, the employee kept quiet and it is only when a charge sheet was issued to him, he has come up with an explanation. It has been stated that the explanation was rejected and it was held that he had committed the misconduct of theft/misappropriate of the C9rporations property. In the circumstances, the aforesaid findings of the employer/Corporation and the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. Admittedly, the Shaft was replaced and after replacing the Shaft, it was the duty of the respondent/employee to deposit it with the competent authority. In case it had been misplaced or stolen or otherwise dealt with by some other person and the employee respondent was not responsible for the same, he should have immediately reported the same to the higher authorities. Even if the Shaft was stolen while in transit, immediately after it revealed then the employee ought to have reported the matter to the police authorities. The respondent employee having not done the aforesaid, the findings of the labour Court and the industrial Court that there is no wilful intention on the part of the employee cannot be sustained. The findings recorded by the Courts below are without considering the evidence which has come on the record. 18. Apart from this, the fact remains that the employer has imposed the punishment on the basis of the evidence which has come in the enquiry. The findings recorded by the Courts below are without considering the evidence which has come on the record. 18. Apart from this, the fact remains that the employer has imposed the punishment on the basis of the evidence which has come in the enquiry. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or contrary to evidence on record. Under these circumstances, the only question which requires determination is as to whether interference in the punishment imposed by the employer was warranted and whether the Labour Court and the Industrial Court could exercise the power under section 107-A of the Act of 1960 in such cases where the misappropriation or theft of the property is proved in the departmental enquiry. 19. In the case of Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra) while considering the powers of Labour Court and the Industrial Court in such matters, the Supreme Court has held that a bus conductor who has charged higher fare from a passenger knowingly commits a gross misconduct and in such cases, the Labour Court and the High Court were not justified in ordering reinstatement with full back wages. It was also held by the Supreme Court that misplaced sympathy by the Labour Court in such cases is not warranted. 20. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and others (supra), the scope of judicial review with regard to the powers vested in the Labour Court under section 11-A of the Act of 1947 was considered and in para 6 of the said judgment it has been observed as under: "As stated above, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in writ appeals confirmed the findings given by the Labour Court that charges against the workmen for breach of trust and misappropriate of funds entrusted to them for the value mentioned in the charge-sheet had been established. After giving the said findings, in our view, the Labour Court materially erred in setting aside the order passed by the I management removing the workmen from service and reinstating; them with 25% back wages. Once an act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled-for sympathy and reinstating the employees in service. Law on this point is well settled. Once an act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled-for sympathy and reinstating the employees in service. Law on this point is well settled. (Re : Municipal Committee. Balwdurgarh v. Krishnan Behari, (1996) 2 SCC 714 . In U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary (1997) 11 SCC 370 , this Court set aside the judgment passed by the High Court in a case where a conductor serving with V.P. State Road Transport Corporation was removed from service on the ground that the alleged misconduct of the conductor was an attempt to cause loss of Rs. 65 to the Corporation by issuing tickets to 23 passengers for a sum of Rs. 2.35 but recovering @ Rs. 5.35 per head and also by making entry in the waybill as having received the amount of Rs. 2.35, which figure was subsequently altered to Rs. 2.85. The Court held that it was not possible to say that the Corporation removing the conductor from service has imposed a punishment which is disproportionate to his misconduct. Similarly in Punjab Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Kala Singh, (1997) 5 SCC 159, this Court considered the case of a workman who was working as a Dairy Helper-cum-Cleaner for collecting milk from various centres and was charged for the misconduct that he inflated the quantum of milk supplies in the milk centres and also inflated the quality of fat contents where there were less fat contents. The Court held (at SCC pp. 161-62, para 4) that in view of the proof of misconduct a necessary consequence will be that the management had lost confidence that the workman would truthfully and faithfully carry. on his duties and consequently the Labour Court rightly declined to exercise the power under section 11-A of the ID Act to grant relief with minor penalty." 21. Similarly, in the case of Regional Manager, RSRTC (supra), also the Supreme Court has considered the implications of section 11-A of the Act of 1947 and it has been held that the powers under section 11-A have to be exercised judiciously and in cases of misappropriation and theft etc., orders of dismissal should not be interfered with. 22. Similarly, in the case of Regional Manager, RSRTC (supra), also the Supreme Court has considered the implications of section 11-A of the Act of 1947 and it has been held that the powers under section 11-A have to be exercised judiciously and in cases of misappropriation and theft etc., orders of dismissal should not be interfered with. 22. This Court also in the case of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra) after discussing various cases on the subject has considered the provisions of section 107 -A of the Act of 1960 and after considering the case of Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and others (supra), came to the conclusion that once the employer has exercised the jurisdiction in imposing the penalty on proof of misconduct, it was not proper for the labour Court to substitute the punishment imposed by the employer in exercise of the powers under section 107-A of the Act of 1960. 23. Viewed in the light of the aforesaid legal position and considering the misconduct in the light of the aforesaid, there cannot be any doubt that the Labour Court and the Industrial Court were not justified in exercising the power under section 107-A of the Act of 1960 by substituting the punishment imposed by the management. This was a case where, even though it has been stated that the employee was negligent in performing his duties, the employer, after having taken into consideration the explanation of the employee, came to the conclusion that he had committed serious misconduct of misappropriation/theft of the Corporation's property. This finding of the employer-Corporation cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable. To this aspect, from records it is apparent that it is a proper findings. Under these circumstances and in view of the judgments' of the Supreme Court and this Court on the subject as detailed hereinabove, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-workman placing reliance on Krishna Kumar Tiwari (supra) cannot be accepted. That was a case where the facts were different. The case relied upon by the learned counsel M.P.S.R. T. Corporation Ltd. (supra) is also distinguishable. The said case related to exercise of powers under section 107-A of the Act of 1960 in cases of illegal retrenchment. This case do not pertain to imposition of penalty on account of misconduct. That was a case where the facts were different. The case relied upon by the learned counsel M.P.S.R. T. Corporation Ltd. (supra) is also distinguishable. The said case related to exercise of powers under section 107-A of the Act of 1960 in cases of illegal retrenchment. This case do not pertain to imposition of penalty on account of misconduct. Accordingly, the same would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and others (supra), and Regional Manager. RSRTC (supra), it cannot be said that the views which were taken by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court in the present case were proper. The respondent/employee has been charged for having committed the theft/misappropriation of the Corporation's property. It is a serious misconduct and the employer having exercised its power properly in accordance with law, misplaced sympathy by the Courts below without considering the gravity of the misconduct committed by the employee and the nature of the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer, this Court is of the considered opinion that this was not a case where the order of the Courts below should have been sustained. 24. Accordingly, it is held that the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have not exercised the discretion properly. The same are contrary to the settled legal principle. The punishment imposed by the employer petitioner do not call for any interference in the exercise of the powers as contained in section 107-A of the Act of 1960. 25. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 22.3.1996 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Court and dated 16.2.1989 (Annexure P-2) are quashed. 26. The petition is accordingly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.