JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. 1. The present petition has been preferred against the award dated 24th May, 2004 in Reference (LCB) No. 13 of 1998 passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch, whereby the order of dismissal from services of the respondent workman has been set aside and the respondent workman has been ordered to be reinstated in service and the punishment of dismissal has been substituted with that of stoppage of four increments with future effect. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation mainly contended that the respondent workman, after collecting fare from passengers, has not issued tickets which were found out during checking of the bus, wherein the respondent workman was working as a conductor. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued and thereafter, an opportunity of being heard was given to the respondent workman. Subsequently, an inquiry was held, validity whereof was not under challenge before the Labour Court. Thus, after holding a legal and valid inquiry, punishment of dismissal was imposed by the petitioner. The said order of dismissal was challenged by the workman through a Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Labour Court, Bharuch, vide its award dated 24th May, 2004 has set aside the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the respondent workman by the petitioner Corporation and has ordered reinstatement of the respondent workman by substituting the punishment of dismissal by stoppage of four increments with future effect. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment awarded by the petitioner was not shockingly disproportionate. It was just, proper and adequate keeping in mind the nature of misconduct on the part of the respondent workman. The fare was collected from respective passengers, but tickets were not issued by the respondent workman. The respondent workman is holding a post of trust. The only work with which the petitioner is wedded is running an ST bus and only two persons are important so far as the petitioner Corporation is concerned, e. one is the conductor and another is the driver. Conductor is the earning member of the petitioner Corporation. The respondent workman is holding a post of trust. The only work with which the petitioner is wedded is running an ST bus and only two persons are important so far as the petitioner Corporation is concerned, e. one is the conductor and another is the driver. Conductor is the earning member of the petitioner Corporation. If an earning member of the petitioner, upon whom the petitioner is relying mainly for its income, it can be said that he is holding a post of trust and when misappropriation is done deliberately, knowingly and by the person holding a post of trust, it always tantamounts to grave misconduct and the petitioner has to curb such type of misconduct with an "iron hand". The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the words "iron hand" have been used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similarly situated matters, especially in the case of Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Etawah and others v. Hotilal and another reported in (2003) 3 SCC, 605. The amount misappropriated may be large or small, but the petitioner Corporation is concerned with, every penny which is to be collected by conductors. A small amount per person per conductor per workman and misappropriation thereof, leads to several difficulties to the petitioner and it goes to the very existence of the petitioner. The post of respondent workman is the most important post so far as the petitioner is concerned. Driver and conductor are the only two persons who are given importance in employment of petitioner Corporation. The conductor is the person from whom physical as well as mental discipline is expected wherein, misappropriation even of a smaller amount cannot be tolerated by the petitioner Corporation. Once legality and validity of inquiry is accepted by the respondent workman, the only power and jurisdiction vested in the Labour Court under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to evaluate and reweigh the quantum of punishment. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, punishment inflicted by the petitioner, that is, of dismissal of the respondent workman was just, proper and adequate enough or in other words, it was not shockingly disproportionate so that it warrants any interference by the Labour Court, Bharuch. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, punishment inflicted by the petitioner, that is, of dismissal of the respondent workman was just, proper and adequate enough or in other words, it was not shockingly disproportionate so that it warrants any interference by the Labour Court, Bharuch. According to him, this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated at all by the Labour Court, hence the award passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, which are as under: (1) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Jamnadas Becharbhai, 1982 GLH 1057 . (2) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Kachraji Motiji Parmar, 1993(1) GLR 302 . (3) Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. v. Secretary Sahakari Noukarara Sangha, (2000) 7 SCC 517 . (4) Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, (2001) 2 SCC 574 . (5) Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah v. Hotilal, (2003) 3 SCC 605 . (6) Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. (N.W.K.R.T.C.) v. A.T. Mane, JT 2004 (8) SC 103. (7) JT 2004(8) SC 113 On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the golden thread running throughout the aforesaid judgments is that whenever a workman is holding a post of trust and is misappropriating any amount, whether smaller or larger amount, punishment of dismissal can never be termed as unreasonable, excessive or shockingly disproportionate. On the contrary, such type of misconduct ought to be handled with "iron hands" and therefore, misplaced sympathy is shown by the Labour Court, Bharuch. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that leniency shown towards such type of mis-conductors who are committing misappropriation of the amount, tantamounts to a threat to innocent persons and therefore, interference in the quantum of punishment by the Labour Court, Bharuch vide award dated 24th May, 2004 in Reference (LCB) No. 13 of 1998 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent workman, who mainly submitted that punishment of dismissal awarded by the petitioner for misappropriation of only Rs.6.50 ps. 4. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent workman, who mainly submitted that punishment of dismissal awarded by the petitioner for misappropriation of only Rs.6.50 ps. is highly disproportionate or shockingly disproportionate and therefore, rightly it has been set aside and replaced by stoppage of four increments with future effect by the Labour Court, Bharuch. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent workman that in fact, there is no misappropriation of any amount whatsoever. The bus was overloaded. Issuance of tickets was going on. In fact, checking was premature. It is not the case of the petitioner Corporation that the respondent workman was sitting idle after issuance of all tickets and the misconduct has been committed by him. The process of issuance of tickets was going on. Cash lying with the respondent workman was never tallied with the tickets issued and therefore, the misconduct is not proved and in such type of case, punishment of dismissal awarded by the petitioner is absolutely harsh and it also tantamounts to punishment to the family of the respondent workman, which has no other source of livelihood. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch may not be interfered with by this Court, especially when this Court is not sitting in an appeal. He lastly submitted that in view of the above position, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties at length and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal awarded by the petitioner to the respondent workman, after holding a legal and valid inquiry was absolutely just and proper, and was not shockingly disproportionate and required no interference much less replacement of the same by reinstatement with stoppage of four increments with future effect. The award passed by the Labour Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, deserves to be quashed and set aside, especially for the following reasons: (i) The petitioner Corporation is running State Transport buses for the transportation of public at large. The petitioner's main concern is that of running buses by drivers and collecting fare by conductors. Thus, for performance of its duties, petitioner Corporation is mainly concerned with drivers and conductors. These are the two posts with which they are mainly concerned. The petitioner's main concern is that of running buses by drivers and collecting fare by conductors. Thus, for performance of its duties, petitioner Corporation is mainly concerned with drivers and conductors. These are the two posts with which they are mainly concerned. Rest of the persons are aiding and assisting conductors and drivers. In the present case, we are concerned with conductor who is collecting money from passengers who are travelling in the ST bus. The conductors are wedded with duty of recovery of fares from passengers. Because of their recovery, the whole show of the petitioner is being run, i.e. for providing services or for making payment of salaries. Salaries are to be paid and services are to be purchased, mainly from the collection of fares from passengers by the workmen like the respondent, who is a conductor. Thus, they are holding a post of trust and confidence. Honesty and integrity are so interwoven with their functioning that they cannot be separated. They are dealing with public money. (ii) If the persons who are holding the posts of trust and confidence like the respondent workman, commit misappropriation, whether of a small or large amount, irrespective of the size of amount, must be viewed very seriously and such type of misconduct ought to be handled with "iron hand" as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah and others v. Hotilal and another reported in (2003) 3 SCC, 605. Para-10 of the said judgment reads as under: "10. It needs to be emphasised that the court or tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment was not commensurate with the proved charges. As has been highlighted in several cases to which reference has been made above, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases in the indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case as the quoted extracts of the High Court's order would go to show, no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Reasons are live links between the mind of decision taken to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. (See Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree). Reasons are live links between the mind of decision taken to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. (See Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree). A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. A party appearing before a court, as to what it is that the court is addressing its mind. It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree or integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of dismissal." (Emphasis supplied). (iii) The case of misappropriation at the behest of the conductor happens frequently with the petitioner Corporation. Time and again, Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that punishment of dismissal from service for misappropriation, by conductors is not shockingly disproportionate and therefore, rightly have not been interfered with in past. The present case is not an exception to those judicial pronouncements. Similar is the nature of misappropriation. Similar is the nature of punishment, that is, dismissal and rightly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has expected on the basis of the judgment upon which he has relied upon that punishment of dismissal ought not to have been altered by the Labour Court, Bharuch as the punishment inflicted by the petitioner Corporation was just, proper, adequate and in consonance with nature of misconduct committed by the respondent workman. (iv) In a similarly situated, Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Jamnadas Becharbhai, reported in 1982 Gujarat Law Herald, 1057 has held as under: "2. (iv) In a similarly situated, Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Jamnadas Becharbhai, reported in 1982 Gujarat Law Herald, 1057 has held as under: "2. We are however, constrained to elaborate the rider added by us in proposition no. 9 wherein it has been observed by us that when an employee holding a sensitive post of trust has been dismissed from service the matter may have to be viewed in a different light. By way of illustration we have referred to pilferage by a cashier or a store-keeper from the stores in his charge. Perhaps we should have anticipated a situation like the present and referred to misappropriation by a bus conductor who has collected fare from passengers but has failed to issue tickets to them. If a bus conductor has been dismissed in such circumstances, his reinstatement in the same post would enable him to indulge in the same malpractice in future. Everyday, he has to collect fare and issue tickets. Reinstatement in the same post would therefore, involve grave risk because of the repetitive opportunity that he would get to indulge in the malpractice and the daily temptation that he would face. Perhaps he would be tempted to repair the past losses. Under the circumstances, when in a fit case the Labour Court reaches the conclusion that misappropriation by a bus conductor has been established (in view of the evidence showing that he had collected the fare from the passengers but had not issued tickets though he had sufficient opportunity to do so in circumstances going to show that there was a dishonest intention, the Labour Court would have to think more than twice before directing reinstatement in the same post as conductor wherein he would be afforded the same opportunity or faced with the same temptation and the Corporation would be exposed to the same risk every day. Be it realised that misappropriation by a bus conductor must be viewed with a degree of seriousness especially having regard to the fact that it would make successful working a public Corporation impossible. In case misappropriation by a conductor is detected and he is found guilty, punishment must be deterrent to him as also to others, for misappropriation in such circumstances, would be in relation to public moneys and the burden would fall on the shoulders of the common man. In case misappropriation by a conductor is detected and he is found guilty, punishment must be deterrent to him as also to others, for misappropriation in such circumstances, would be in relation to public moneys and the burden would fall on the shoulders of the common man. And be it realised that 80 per cent of the total tax burden consists of indirect taxes which makes it impossible for the common man to stand erect and virtually makes him craunch on the ground. There is another tormenting reason for viewing the matter with anxious eyes. The Public Sector can never (NEVER) succeed if "every-ones property (which it in fact is) is treated as "no ones property. The New Culture for the New Man of New India must therefore be National Interest above all other interests including self-interest, sectional interest or class-interest. And therefore, the bus conductor, poor as he is, may have to suffer. We suffer more than him in having to say so, particularly, because big sharks never get caught. If they get caught they more often than not escape with impunity. But then merely because we cannot prevent the sharks escaping we cannot permit the fly to trifle with Public Property which is the poor men's collective property (if we envision for them a sun-lit day even on some distant tomorrow in the hidden future). Under the circumstances, the Labour Court was not justified in reinstating a conductor who had collected fare, pocketed the same, and robbed the National Exchequer, in he same post where he could re-indulge in the same weakness at public cost. The Labour Court, can depending upon facts and circumstances of the case and of the offender direct that he should be absorbed in the workshop section or some other similar post which does not involve daily handling of money. That must be left to the Labour Court. And the Labour Court would have to decide the issue having regard to facts and circumstances of each case and the demands of the situation in the context of each matter." (Emphasis supplied). In the same manner, in another case decided by this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Kachraji Motiji Parmar reported in 1993 (1) GLR, 302, this court has taken the same view. Paras-5 and 6 read as under: "5. In the same manner, in another case decided by this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Kachraji Motiji Parmar reported in 1993 (1) GLR, 302, this court has taken the same view. Paras-5 and 6 read as under: "5. Lastly, we would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Ram Singh, Ex constable, JT 1992(4) SC 253, wherein the Court observed while interpreting Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Manual, 1934, Vol.II, wherein the Court observed that a single act of corruption is sufficient to award an order of dismissal under the Rule as gravest act of misconduct. The relevant observations of the Court are as under: "Take for instance the delinquent that put in 29 years of continuous length of service and had unblemished record; in 30th year he commits defalcation of public money or fabricates also records to conceal misappropriation. He only committed once. Does it mean that he should not be inflicted with the punishment of dismissal but be allowed to continue in service for that year to enable him to get his full pension. The answer is obviously no. Therefore, a single act of corruption is sufficient to award an order of dismissal under the rule as gravest act of misconduct." 6. In the present case, it is apparent that the Labour Court has misdirected itself and has misplaced sympathy though the workman has committed grave misconduct. He has designedly reissued 15 used tickets. This would indicate that the workman had planned it in advance to collect the tickets from the passengers with view to re-issue the same in the next trip. Not only this, but the workman in the present case has not issued tickets to the two passengers even-though he had collected the fare from them. Further, he has not issued tickets to three passengers and lastly he has punched some tickets in such a manner so that they can be re-issued in subsequent trip. This conduct on the part of the workman establishes beyond any doubt that the act of the workman was preplanned and well designed to misappropriate the Bus fare amount. Apart from this aspect, there was no reason for the Labour Court to ignore the fact that the workman was involved in 44 default cases and on one occasion he was removed from service. Apart from this aspect, there was no reason for the Labour Court to ignore the fact that the workman was involved in 44 default cases and on one occasion he was removed from service. In this view of the matter, in our view, the order passed by the Labour Court is on the face of it unreasonable and unjustified. The Labour Court ought to have held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this was not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act." Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and others v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and others reported in (2000) 7 SCC, 517 has also held that uncalled for sympathy ought not to be shown, in cases of misconduct of misappropriation. Relevant paragraphs 3,6 and 8 of the said judgment read as under: "3. The question involved in these appeals is whether the High Court was justified in confirming the order passed by the Labour Court reinstating the respondent workmen with 25% back wages in spite of specific finding of fact that the charges of breach of trust and misappropriation of goods for the value given in the said charges had been clearly established. Apparently, it would be an unjustified direction to reinstate an employee against whom charge of misappropriation is established. A proved act of misappropriation cannot be taken lightly even though a number of such misappropriation cases remain undisclosed and such employees or others amass wealth by such means. In any case, misappropriation cannot be rewarded or legalised by reinstatement in service with full or part of back wages. 6. As stated above, the learned Single Judge and Division Bench in writ appeals confirmed the findings given by the Labour Court that charges against the workmen for breach of trust and misappropriation 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 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. 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, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari). In U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Basudeo Chaudhary this Court set aside the judgment passed by the High Court in a case where a conductor serving with U.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 Corporation Ltd. v. Kala Singh, 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 inflected the quantum of milk supplies in the milk centres and also inflated the quality of a 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. 8. In case of proved misappropriation, in our view, there is no question of considering past record. It is the discretion of the employer to consider the same in appropriate cases, but the Labour Court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the employer in such cases" In the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S.Hullikatti reported in (2001) 2 SCC, 574, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also decided a similar case of a conductor of misconduct of misappropriation and dismissal from service and has upheld the punishment of dismissal awarded by the employer. Paras-5 and 6 of the said judgment read as under: "5. On the facts as found by the Labour Court and the High Court, it is evident that there was short-changing of the fare by the respondent from as many as 35 passengers. We are informed that the respondent had been in service as a conductor for nearly 22 years. It is difficult to believe that he did not know what was the correct are which was to be charged. Furthermore, the appellant had during the disciplinary proceedings taken into account the fact that the respondent had been found guilty on as many as 36 times on different dates. Be that as it may, the principle of res ipsa loquitur, namely, the facts speak for themselves, is clearly applicable in the instant case. Charging 50 paise per ticket more from as many as 35 passengers could only be to get financial benefit, by the conductor. This act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a conductor because such action or inaction of his is bound to result in a financial loss to the appellant Corporation. 6. It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on checking it is found that Bus Conductors have 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." Similarly, in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane, reported in JT 2004(8) SC, 103, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paras-4, 5 and 13 as under: "4. As stated above, aggrieved corporation preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition agreed with the Labour Court that since the corporation failed to examine the passengers from whom the said excess amount was collected, the charge of non-issuance of tickets or issuance of tickets of lesser denomination could not be upheld. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition agreed with the Labour Court that since the corporation failed to examine the passengers from whom the said excess amount was collected, the charge of non-issuance of tickets or issuance of tickets of lesser denomination could not be upheld. The learned Single Judge also agreed with the Labour Court that the punishment awarded was also excessive however, it thought fit to reduce the back wages awarded by the Labour Court. 5. On appeal filed against the said judgment before the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on two grounds firstly, it held that there was a delay of 16 days in preferring the appeal. However, the court observed that it would have certainly condoned the said delay had there been any merit in the appeal. Having said so the Division Bench held that they do not find any merit in the appeal and agreed with the single judge that the order of reinstatement with reduced back wages was a just order. "13. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment, on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating corporation's fund, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal." 6. Thus, the gist of all the aforesaid judgments is that when a workman in a State Road Transport Corporation, who is a conductor, who is holding a post of trust and confidence; integrity and honesty are a part of his functioning and who is the main earning member for the petitioner corporation is committing misconduct of misappropriation, even of a smaller amount, ought not to have been viewed leniently and misplaced sympathy if shown by the Labour Court by awarding reinstatement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such type of misplaced sympathy is uncalled for and unwarranted and has further held that punishment of dismissal is just and proper and cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate. For the petitioner Corporation, a driver is the most important person who is driving State Transport bus for the welfare of the public at large and conductor is the main earning member for the petitioner Corporation. Services to the public can be effectively provided by the petitioner mainly with the help of amounts collected by conductors. Salaries can be regularly paid by the petitioner to their employees provided conductors are collecting the amount and if honestly conductors are collecting fares from passengers, to that extent, State Transport Corporation may not have to defend upon Public Exchequer of State of Gujarat. Driver and conductor are two most important posts of trust. Rest of the post holders are aiding and assisting the aforesaid two posts for the better management and control of their functions. Conductors act in a fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that when conductors are committing misconduct of misappropriating of the amount, punishment of dismissal is not unreasonable, excessive or disproportionate, much less, shockingly disproportionate and whenever Labour Courts have upset and interfered with the said punishment awarded by the corporations like petitioner in past, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not approved such type of exercise of powers at the behest of the Labour Courts in exercise of their power under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and nature of misconduct on the part of the respondent workman, I am of the opinion that there was no need for the Labour Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by the petitioner to the respondent workman. In past also, within a period of seven years, there are as many as 16 misconducts and one of them had led even to his dismissal in past. However, it appears that there is no improvement in the habit of the respondent workman. Always the petitioner cannot expect improvement in the behaviour of the respondent workman. Chances have been given as it appears from the evidence led before Labour Court, Bharuch. Enough is enough. For an indefinite period and always, sympathy cannot be shown by the petitioner as it appears from the facts of the case. Misplaced sympathy ought not to have been shown by the Labour Court, Bharuch by awarding reinstatement. 8. Chances have been given as it appears from the evidence led before Labour Court, Bharuch. Enough is enough. For an indefinite period and always, sympathy cannot be shown by the petitioner as it appears from the facts of the case. Misplaced sympathy ought not to have been shown by the Labour Court, Bharuch by awarding reinstatement. 8. In view of the aforesaid aspects of the matter and the well settled legal position, the award dated 24th May, 2004 in Reference (LCB) No. 13 of 1998 passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch is hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The punishment of dismissal awarded by the petitioner Corporation to the respondent workman is hereby confirmed. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. Civil Application does not survive. Petition allowed.