Judgment :- V. Kanagaraj, J. Writ appeal preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.13863 of 1994 dated 21.12.2001. 2. The writ petition has been filed praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the award dated 11.8.1993 passed in I.D.No.414 of 1989 on the file of the Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, Madras. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred that the petitioner therein who is the 1st respondent herein has filed I.D.No.414 of 1989 on the file of the 2nd respondent Labour Court herein stating that the employee/appellant herein was employed as conductor with staff No.5963 and he was assigned duty in route No.56-B on 16.6.1976; that when the bus was checked by the Checking Squad of the Corporation at about 17 hours they found various irregularities committed on the part of the appellant herein and also he misbehaved with the checking inspectors obstructing them from getting statements from passengers and threatening the concerned passengers; that when the checking inspectors issued an I.R. Memo No.431403 initially the appellant refused to receive the same and subsequently receiving the same he tore it immediately and ran away from the spot and then he came back and accepted a fresh I.R. Memo and the checking staff submitted their report on 17.6.1976. 4. 4. The further case of the first respondent before the learned single judge is that the Transport Corporation after scrutinizing the report suspended the appellant on 18.6.1976 and a charge sheet was also issued with 10 charges and then the appellant submitted his explanation on 8.10.1976; that for conducting an enquiry a retired District Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct a fair enquiry; that after enquiry the enquiry officer submitted his finding against the appellant herein finding him guilty of the offence and based on the enquiry report a show cause notice was issued on 18.1.1977; that the appellant herein has submitted his reply on the show-cause notice stating that he did not know English and demanded a fresh enquiry in Tamil and in view of the demand made by the appellant a fresh enquiry was conducted in Tamil and in that enquiry also the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the appellant was guilty of the charge levelled against him in Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 8 of the charge memo; that based on the finding, a second show cause notice was issued on 19.7.1977 questioning the appellant as to why action should not be taken against him based on the enquiry report; that the appellant filed his explanation on 22.9.1977 and not being satisfied with the same an order of dismissal was passed by the Transport Corporation by its proceedings dated 25.1.1977. 5. The further case of the appellant is that he filed a claim petition before the Presiding Officer, 2nd Additional Labour Court, Vellore in I.D.No.414 of 1989; that the second respondent after considering the oral and documentary evidence of both the management as well as the employee, passed an order in the said I.D.No.414 of l989 in allowing the petition on 11.8.1993 by directing the Management to reinstate the appellant into service with continuity of service but without backwages from 25.10.1977 to 12.4.1989 and thereafter with backwages; that as against the award of the Labour Court, Vellore, the Management filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.13863 of 1994 and the learned single Judge of this court allowed the writ petition by its order dated 21.12.2001 dismissing the award passed by the Labour Court in its order dated 11.8.1993 in I.D.No.414 of 1989. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.13863 of 1994 dated 21.12.2001, the appellant herein has filed the above writ appeal on such grounds such as that the learned single Judge failed to note that the appellant's past conduct, character and service are pure and without fault; that the learned single Judge failed to note that no action was initiated against the passenger who is alleged to have been travelling without ticket and with ticket for lesser price; that the learned Judge further failed to note that when passengers are many in number there is possibility of the conductor for such mistake to occur in the issuance of tickets by the conductor and it cannot be construed either for non-issuance of ticket or for misappropriation of the same; that the learned Judge failed to note that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged offence; that the learned Judge further failed to note the management did not examine any independent witness and that those examined and that the documents in Exhibits M-14 and M-15 have not been proved in accordance with law; that the learned Judge failed to note that none of the passengers alleged to have given statement while examined; that the learned single Judge further failed to note that the driver on duty at the time of incident has given a statement that no such incident took place as alleged by the management; that the learned Judge failed to note that the management has passed dismissal order without considering the explanation given by the appellant and his past service; that the learned Judge further failed to note that the loss of salary from 25.10.1977 to 12.04.1989 itself is sufficient punishment; that the learned Judge failed note that the judgments cited by the first respondent are not applicable to the facts of the case on such and other grounds the appellant would ultimately pray to allow the writ appeal for the relief extracted supra. 6. 6. During the arguments the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant besides reiterating those points which have been brought forth in the grounds of appeal would cite from the Standing Orders applicable to the employees of Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited, Madras authorised under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 particularly Order 27 (f) wherein it is stipulated that "in awarding punishment, the punishing authority shall take into account the gravity of the acts of commissions and omissions, the previous records of the workman and or any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist", would further cite a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in The President, Cholan Pokkuvarathu Kazhagam, Madras Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras and another (1989 II LLJ 233), wherein it is held that "After the introduction of Section 11A into the Industrial Dispute Act, the Tribunal can not only consider whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct but also differ from the said finding if a proper case is made out. What was once in the realm of satisfaction of the employer has now come within the purview of the powers of the Tribunal. There is a power to interfere with the punishment and alter the same conferred on the Tribunal. Section 11A was brought in because of the felt needs of the time and this benevolent power must be exercised in the spirit in which the provision has been enacted." 7. On the part of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent besides bringing out the salient factual position of the case, would also cite a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court for the point that where misconduct proved against the workman is on dishonesty the quantum of loss is immaterial, it is the loss of confidence that matters; in such a case the employer should not be directed to reinstate the said workman and would cite the following paragraph 10 and 11 of the Judgment in Regional Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sohan Lal [(SC)[(2004) 107 F.J.R. 535(SC)] wherein it is held:- "10. We notice from the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that the respondent-workman had indulged in misconduct which has not only led to monetary loss to the Corporation but the Corporation has also lost confidence in the said workman. Sohan Lal [(SC)[(2004) 107 F.J.R. 535(SC)] wherein it is held:- "10. We notice from the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that the respondent-workman had indulged in misconduct which has not only led to monetary loss to the Corporation but the Corporation has also lost confidence in the said workman. Therefore, to continue such an employee in the employment of the Corporation by virtue of a judicial order, in our opinion, is an act of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in law or in equity. The finding that the workman has committed the misconduct in question not issuing tickets to passengers is a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence recorded therein. This finding was affirmed by the learned Single Judge and the High Court has not set aside the finding. Therefore the question of moulding the relief on the facts of this case did not arise at all. The offer of the respondent to forego the back wages in lieu of his being reinstated is not an offer to be taken into consideration by the court unless and until the finding of the Tribunal on misconduct was set aside and having perused the records including the order of the Tribunal, we are satisfied that this is not one of those cases in which there was room for setting aside such a finding. 11. Assuming for argument sake that the High Court by the impugned order proceeded on the basis that though the misconduct is proved the punishment was disproportionate and it is on that basis that the impugned order is made, even then we are unable to agree with the order of the Appellate Bench of the High Court because it is not the normal jurisdiction of the superior courts to interfere with the quantum of sentence unless the said sentence is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. No such finding has been recorded by the Appellate Bench in the impugned order. Since the misconduct proved is one of dishonesty, the quantum of loss is immaterial, it is the loss of confidence that matters. No such finding has been recorded by the Appellate Bench in the impugned order. Since the misconduct proved is one of dishonesty, the quantum of loss is immaterial, it is the loss of confidence that matters. In such a situation if the Tribunal chooses to uphold the order of dismissal and refuse to interfere with such termination and the learned single Judge of the High Court agreed with the said order of the Tribunal, then Appellate Bench ought not to have interfered with the quantum of sentence. Having perused the facts of the case we are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal as well as learned single Judge, hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellate Bench fell in error in interfering with the orders of the courts below merely on the basis of offer made by the appellant before it." On such arguments the learned counsel would pray to dismiss the above writ appeal. 8. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both a pertinent question that is to be answered in the above writ appeal is whether in arriving at the conclusion that the order of dismissal should not have been modified by the Labour Court thus allowing the writ petition filed by the management, the learned single Judge fell in error in interfering with the order of the Labour Court? 9. 9. A careful perusal of the order of the learned single Judge would clearly indicate that the single Judge having traced the facts and events connected to the whole affair regarding the initiation of the domestic proceedings against the appellant, the charge memo, the manner of conduct of the enquiry, the findings arrived at by the enquiry Officer, the punishment inflicted by the Disciplinary authority the proceedings of the Industrial Disputes Act conducted by the Labour Court, the findings thereon and further taking into consideration of all those relevant materials concerning the subject, the proposition of law relating to the subject and the proposition held by different upper Forums of law including that of the Honourable Apex Court and has ultimately arrived at the conclusion to hold that the order of dismissal should not have been modified by the Labour court and accordingly setting aside the order of the Labour Court dated 11.8.1993 thus allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent management without costs, further observing that it is stated that pursuant to the decision of Section 17-B of the application, the petitioner corporation reinstated the conductor and it is informed that he had a few more years of service and it is for the management Transport Corporation to take appropriate decision and it is this judgment, which is testified in the above writ appeal. 10. 10. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case encircling the whole affair concerned with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the appellant for delinquencies and brought forth in the charge memo and the findings given by the Enquiry Officer based on which the punishment was inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority in which interference was made by the Labour Court in reversing the decision of the disciplinary authority leading to the management filing the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single judge has arrived at his own decision to differ with the order of the Labour Court passed in its Industrial Disputes Proceedings so as to ultimately hold that the order of dismissal should not have been interfered with or modified by the Labour Court accordingly allowing the writ petition filed by the management with further direction regarding the position of law under Section 17-B and it is this order which has been testified on grounds extracted supra and in consideration of all these aspects in the context of the position of law on the subject particularly focussing attention on the proposition of law held by the Honourable Apex Court in such matters of disciplinary proceedings, this Court is of the view that not only the decision arrived at by the learned Single Judge but also the manner in which the learned Single Judge has ultimately arrived at the decision to allow the writ petition filed on the part of the management thereby justifying the decision of the disciplinary authority and differing from the interference caused in modifying the decision arrived at by the Labour Court whether factually or in application of the law, this Court is not able to find any legal error or procedural failure or legal infirmity or inconsistency thus affecting the magnum of law or the majesty of justice and the manner in which the learned single Judge has arrived at his conclusion particularly bearing in mind the gravity of the offence of misconduct committed on the part of the appellant has come to the right conclusion which is the only conclusion that could be arrived at in the circumstances of the case and therefore this Court does not find any reason to cause its interference into the well considered and merited manner in which the learned single Judge has passed its order and hence the following order: In result, (i) The above writ appeal does not merit acceptance but becomes only liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly; (ii) The order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 21.12.2001 made in W.P.No.13863 of 1994 is hereby confirmed; and (iii) However, there shall be no order as to costs.