RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) ). THE present petition is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation) challenging the judgement and award dated 15th February, 2001 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1707 of 1998. ( 2 ) ). THE case of the petitioner-Corporation is that the respondent-workman, who was serving as a conductor with the Corporation, had put in about 20 years service during which his service record is worth noting. He had as many as 41 defaults to his credit, of which 34 are pertaining to financial irregularities and for two times, he has been awarded punishment of dismissal. However, with a view to give him an opportunity to improve his conduct, these dismissal orders were withdrawn and he was allowed to continue in service. ( 3 ) ). THE list of defaults produced at page 22 of the petition, from which it is noted that on 7 occasions, punishment of stoppage of increments ranging from one year to three years with future effect was imposed. Despite this, the respondent-workman did not improve and has continued to indulge in similar irregularity. ( 4 ) ). ON 1 5/09/1992, the bus, in which the present respondent-conductor was on duty, was checked. It is on record that there were about 30 passengers, of which five passengers were not given tickets though fare was collected. The defence put forward by the respondent-workman is that, these five passengers were of the same group and were sitting scattered in the bus and were trying to shift the liability of taking tickets on each other; when the conductor insisted and asked them to purchase the tickets, a currency note of 100 rupees denomination was given; the conductor insisted that they should give change of Rs. 10=00; and, while this dispute was going on, the bus reached at Matoda - the destination of these five passengers, where it was checked. ( 5 ) ). MR. MUKESH Rathod, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-workman, submitted that this is a genuine case wherein on account of fault on the part of the passengers, the conductor could not issue tickets. He emphatically submitted that, the respondent-workman had stated this fact in his statement, which was recorded on the spot, and even in the cross examination of the reporter, this fact is narrated. The submission of Mr. He emphatically submitted that, the respondent-workman had stated this fact in his statement, which was recorded on the spot, and even in the cross examination of the reporter, this fact is narrated. The submission of Mr. Rathod, learned Advocate, does not warrant any cognisance at the hands of this Court because the same is rightly rejected by the learned Presiding Officer. This defence is put forward in a statement of the workman. The question is as to whether the said defence is worth accepting. It is on record that though the distance between Bavla and Matoda is 26 kms. , the passengers, who had boarded the bus from Bavla and were to alight at Matoda, were not given tickets when the bus was checked at Matoda. ( 6 ) ). TAKING in consideration the latest judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter between Regional Manager, R. S. R. T. C. , vs. Ghanshyam Sharma, reported in 2002 I CLR 150, wherein, reliance has been placed in one of its judgement in the matter between Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B. S. Hullikatti, reported in JT 2001 (2) SC 72, and also in the matter between Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and Ors. vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and Ors. , reported in (2000) 7 SCC 517 , this Court finds that the Labour Court has committed grave error in reinstating the respondent in service with 40% back-wages. ( 7 ) ). IN the result, the petition is allowed. The judgement and award dated dated 1 5/02/2001 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1707 of 1998 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. .