RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) ). RULE. Mr. M. H. Rathod, learned Advocate, appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent. ( 2 ) ). THE present petition is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) being aggrieved of the judgement and award dated 7/03/2001 in Reference (IT) No. 20 of 1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. ( 3 ) ). THE facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that, on 1 7/01/1999, the bus wherein the respondent-workman was conductor, was checked and out of 32 passengers travelling in that bus, 13 passengers were found to be without tickets. From some of them, the conductor had collected full fare, while from some of them he had collected lesser amount than the actual fare, but, tickets were not issued to any of them. ( 4 ) ). THE learned Member of the Tribunal, while appreciating the facts of the case, has recorded in paragraph-6 the details of non-issuance of tickets to various group of passengers travelling in the bus. It is also recorded that the respondent-workman, conductor, left the bus at the checking point and did not complete the trip of the bus, which must have caused immense difficulties to the passengers travelling by that bus. It is further recorded by the learned Member in paragraph 7 that the respondent-workman did not file any reply to the chargesheet. What is interesting in the matter is that when the respondent-workman was asked to make an endorsement on the statements of the passengers, which were recorded at the place of checking, stated that, "the statement is not accepted to him because his mind is not working". He made this endorsement not on one, but, all the statements. He left the "ticket tray" and the cash at the checking point and went away. This shows the height of irresponsibility with which a person can behave. A conductor is a responsible employee of the Corporation, enabling the Corporation to render public services for which the Corporation is meant for. If such an irresponsible employee is allowed to go without any punishment, it will send wrong signals and will not be in public interest. ( 5 ) ). THE learned Judge in paragraph 9, for no valid reasons, has stated that if the salary of the respondent-workman is reduced from Rs. 1,665=00 to Rs. If such an irresponsible employee is allowed to go without any punishment, it will send wrong signals and will not be in public interest. ( 5 ) ). THE learned Judge in paragraph 9, for no valid reasons, has stated that if the salary of the respondent-workman is reduced from Rs. 1,665=00 to Rs. 910=00, he will be suffering a loss of Rs. 755=00 per month and if other benefits, calculated on the basis of that pay, are taken into consideration the total loss will come to Rs. 1,000=00 per month. An unwarranted observation is made by the learned Member of the Tribunal to the effect that, "this will amount to economic death of the employee". If an employee gets Rs. 1,000=00 less, but, continues in service, there is no question of an "economic death". Normally, the phrase, "economic death", is used when a person is dismissed from service. The learned Member has further recorded that on perusal of the past record of the respondent-workman, there are small and large instances of misconduct, in which penalty varying from stoppage of one to three increments without future effect is imposed. (emphasis supplied) ( 6 ) ). MR. H. C. RAVAL, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that in fact, there were as many as 36 misconducts were recorded and of those, 20 pertains to "non-issuance of tickets". He submitted that the learned Member of the Tribunal was not right when he observed that the penalty of stoppage of one to three increments with future effect was imposed on the respondent-workman. He submitted that in one case, penalty of dismissal was imposed, which is overlooked by the learned Member. ( 7 ) ). THE learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon a judgement of the Honourable Apex Court in the matter between Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B. S. Hullikatti, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 574 . He relied upon the observations made by the Honourable Apex Court in paragraph-6, which is reproduced as under :"6. It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on checking it is found that the Bus Conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on checking it is found that the Bus Conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the Bus Conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the company. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare. "in view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is required to be allowed and the same is allowed. The judgement and award dated 7/03/2001 in Reference (IT) No. 20 of 1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad is quashed and set aside and the penalty imposed by the GSRTC is restored. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. .