B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (for short "corporation") has challenged in this petition the impugned judgement and award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 442 of 1988, whereby the Learned Labour Judge declared the dismissal order of the respondent workman from service as illegal and accordingly, quashed and set aside the same and the petitioner - Corporation was directed to re-include the name of the workman in the waiting list of conductors within one month from the date of the award and the service of the workman was ordered to be continued. However, the workman was held not entitled for any backwages from 29. 8. 1977 till date of the re-inclusion of his name in the waiting list for conductors. ( 2 ) THE respondent workman initially joined as conductor in Jam Jodhpur Depot of the petitioner Corporation on 20. 3. 1985. Thereafter, he was transferred to Dhoraji depot on 1. 2. 1987. On 11. 6. 1987, he was on duty as conductor in a bus going on Dhoraji Manvad route. At that time his bus was checked at Mordi Patiya where 15 passengers were found travelling without tickets though the workman conductor had recovered the ticket fare from them. ( 3 ) DTS (D), Junagadh issued show cause notice dated 1. 7. 1987 to the workman to which he filed reply dated 13. 7. 1987. Thereafter, regular inquiry was held against the workman and after holding the regular inquiry, the charges were found to be proved against the workman. Therefore, his name was ordered to be deleted from the waiting list of conductors on 29. 8. 1987. Thereupon, industrial dispute was raised and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Rajkot. ( 4 ) CHARGE against the workman was that while he was on duty as conductor on 11. 6. 1987 on Dhoraji Manvad route, his bus was checked at about 5:15 p. m. at Mordi Patiya. It was found that 11 passengers of 2 different groups travelling from Kandorana to Pipaliya Patiya had no tickets though the workman collected fare from them in advance. Four other passengers travelling from Kandorana to Satodad were also having no tickets though the ticket fares were collected from them by the workman. ( 5 ) THE respondent workman offered his explanation at Exh. Four other passengers travelling from Kandorana to Satodad were also having no tickets though the ticket fares were collected from them by the workman. ( 5 ) THE respondent workman offered his explanation at Exh. 8 wherein it is stated that there were 108 passengers travelling in the bus which was beyond the capacity. Therefore, there was a delay in issuing tickets to particular passengers. It is the further case of the respondent workman that there was air leaking in the bus on account of breaking of diesel pipe, therefore, he instructed the driver of the bus not to stop the bus at any other place for more than necessary time. Reporting Officer A. P. Mesvania was examined in presence of the workman. Shri Mesvania deposed that at the time when the bus was checked, he found in all 15 passengers travelling without tickets though they paid up their fare of the tickets. He recorded their statements to that effect. This evidence of Shri Mesvania remained unchallenged as respondent - workman told the Inquiry Officer that he does not want to put any question to him. Thereafter, the respondent workman was examined by the Inquiry Officer. However, surprisingly, in his statement before the Inquiry Officer, the respondent workman took a somersault and stated that he had never recovered any fare from those 15 passengers who were travelling without tickets and due to road booking they were not issued tickets when the bus was checked because it was overloaded. However, in support of his defence, he had not preferred to examine any defence witnesses. The Learned Labour Judge in para 6 of his judgement clearly held that the defence of the workman is in clear conflict with the statement made on the spot before the Checking Officer. Therefore, his defence before the Inquiry Officer that he did not collect any ticket fare from those 15 passengers cannot be believed as it does not inspire any confidence. ( 6 ) IN Para 7, the Learned Labour Judge has also observed that the Checking Officer recorded the statements of passengers Ravji Natha, Vrujlal Bachubhai, Mukesh Vashram, Purshottam Ravji and all of them stated before the Checking Officer that they had paid up the ticket fare to the conductor - respondent workman but he had not issued the tickets to them. ( 7 ) IN view of the above, the Learned Labour Judge was of the opinion that the inquiry papers were to prove that the workman had collected ticket fare from the said 15 passengers and had not issued tickets to them till the bus was checked by the Checking party. Accordingly, in his opinion, the finding of the Inquiry Officer on this point was deserved to be upheld and accordingly, it was upheld. ( 8 ) SURPRISINGLY, after having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the Labour Judge after considering the past record of the respondent workman interfered with the dismissal order in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and set aside the order of dismissal of the respondent workman. The Learned Labour Judge considered the fact that there was one past report of the respondent workman where he had not recovered fare from 10 passengers travelling in the bus on 14. 6. 1985. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was dishonest intention or default on the part of the respondent workman at that time. According to his opinion, punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the workman was quite harsh and disproportionate. Therefore, it was required to be modified in the interest of justice. The submission made by the Learned Advocate for the respondent workman that it would be quite justifiable if backwages of the workman are withheld and workman is reinstated in service appealed to the Learned Judge as according to him denying backwages would be appropriate punishment to the workman for the incident in question and that the Learned Advocate for the Corporation also did not challenge the said submission made by the Counsel for the workman. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel Ms. Maya Desai appearing for Mr. M. D. Pandya for the appellant Corporation vehemently submitted that the respondent workman was merely a Badli worker. Therefore, even if he was to be reinstated in service there was no question of awarding him full backwages. She further submitted that when he was not entitled for backwages then it cannot be said that it would be an adequate punishment. Ms. Therefore, even if he was to be reinstated in service there was no question of awarding him full backwages. She further submitted that when he was not entitled for backwages then it cannot be said that it would be an adequate punishment. Ms. Desai submitted that in fact while setting aside the order of dismissal from service, the Labour Court has not passed any order of punishment and in such type of serious cases of misappropriation of public funds, there cannot be any other order of punishment except the order of dismissal from service. She, therefore, submitted that even if the submission of the Counsel for the workman was not challenged before the Labour Court that would not confer any jurisdiction to the Labour Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. She, therefore, submitted that the petition be allowed and the impugned judgement and award passed by the Labour Court quashing and setting aside the impugned order of dismissal of the respondent workman and reinstating him in service and including his name in the waiting list of conductors be quashed and set aside. However, the Learned Counsel Shri Prabhakar Upadhyay appearing for Shri Mukesh H Rathod for the respondent workman submitted that the Division Bench of this Court on 25. 1. 1993 (Coram: A. P. Ravani and J. M. Panchal, JJ) while admitting the petition and issuing rule on it refused to grant stay against the directions issued by the Labour Court of re-including the name of the respondent workman in the waiting list and by virtue of that order refusing stay against the impunged judgement and award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant - Corporation has reincluded the name of the respondent workman in waiting list of conductors and he has been taken up on time scale grade w. e. f. 22. 3. 1990. In that view of the matter, after a period of 13 years if this Court allows the petition and quash and set aside the judgement and award passed by the Labour Court then the respondent would be no where and he will suffer great hardship. As against that, Ms. 3. 1990. In that view of the matter, after a period of 13 years if this Court allows the petition and quash and set aside the judgement and award passed by the Labour Court then the respondent would be no where and he will suffer great hardship. As against that, Ms. Maya Desai pointed out that after reinclusion of the name of the respondent workman in he waiting list of conductors as per the order of the Learned Labour Court, when the Division Bench of this Court refused to grant stay against that award, the respondent workman committed as many as 11 misconducts for which he is suitably punished. She, therefore, submitted that the workman cannot be continued in service. She further submitted that this was a fortuitous circumstance when the Division Bench of this Court refused to grant stay but when this Court is fully satisfied that the Labour Court had committed jurisdictional error in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act then in such type of serious cases of misappropriation then mere lapse of period of 13 years should not come in the way of the court for allowing the petition and setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court. In support of her submission, she has relied on the Division Bench judgement of this Court dated 18. 7. 2003 delivered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 66 of 2001, presiding the bench the said judgement was coincidentally delivered by me. It was also a case of misappropriation by a conductor who was permanent employee and that the Labour Court had exercised jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes act in favour of the respondent workman. The said order was set aside by the Learned Single Judge of this court in exercise of his jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. That order passed by the Learned Single Judge was challenged in Letters Patent appeal by the workman which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, recently on 18. 7. 2003. I am bound by the said judgement of the Division Bench of this Court. That order passed by the Learned Single Judge was challenged in Letters Patent appeal by the workman which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, recently on 18. 7. 2003. I am bound by the said judgement of the Division Bench of this Court. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that when the Labour Court itself has come to the conclusion that the defence of the workman that he has not recovered ticket fare from 15 passengers was false and cannot be accepted then in such type of serious misconduct of misappropriating the public funds, the Labour Court could not have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that the order of dismissal from service was quite harsh and disproportionate, therefore, it was required to be modified in the interest of justice. Apart from the fact that it was not in the interest of justice, it was against public interest. Merely, because the submission made by the Counsel for the workman that he may not be awarded backwages no challenged by the Counsel for the workman would not confer any jurisdiction to the Labour Court to quash and set aside the judgement an order of dismissal passed by the appellant Corporation. If wrong concession is made by the Counsel for the parties which is against the law, then it will not confer any right or jurisdiction to the court to interfere with the just and legal order of dismissal passed by the Authority. ( 11 ) IN view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and the impugned judgement and award passed by the Labour Court on 1. 9. 1989 in Reference (ICR) No. 442 of 1988 quashing and setting aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 29. 8. 1987 passed by the petitioner Corporation against the respondent workman and directing the petitioner Corporation to reinclude the name of the respondent workman in the waiting list of conductor is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with costs. .