D. N. PATEL. J, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition has been preferred against the award passed by the industrial Tribunal, Rajkot dated 25th June, 2004 in Reference (IT) No. 242 of 1999. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation mainly submitted that the charge levelled against the respondent workman was a conductor, though had collected fares from fourteen passengers, has not issued tickets, when the bus was checked by the checking squard, the aforesaid misconduct of the conductor was found out. After issuing necessary notice and after-holding departmental inquiry, the punishment awarded by the petitioner was stoppage of three increments with future effect. The said punishment awarded by the petitioner was not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the conductor. There was a misappropriation of the amount. Though the fare was collected from respective passengers/ the tickets were not issued by the respondent workman. The legality and validity of the inquiry has been accepted by the respondent workman. The respondent workman has committed similar type of misconduct in past also, and, therefore, industrial Tribunal, Rajkot ought not to have interfered with the- punishment inflicted by the petitioner. The reduction in the punishment, by the Industrial Tribunal, rajkot was not warranted, keeping in mind the nature of misconduct. There was stoppage of two increments without-future effect by the award passed by the Industrial tribunal, Rajkot. On the contrary, in view of the powers conferred with the Industrial tribunal, Rajkot under section 11-A of the industrial Tribunal Act, unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it would not be interfered by the Industrial tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon several decisions, which are referred hereinafter and submitted that in the similarly situated cases, the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Apex Court has permitted the dismissal in the case of misappropriation by conductor. The punishment awarded by the petitioner corporation is much lesser than the termination of service, and, therefore, the Industrial Tribunal ought not to have interfered in the punishment awarded by the petitioner. Sympathy shown by the industrial Tribunal, Rajkot is misplaced sympathy. The punishment cannot, be too nominal. The punishment awarded by the petitioner corporation is much lesser than the termination of service, and, therefore, the Industrial Tribunal ought not to have interfered in the punishment awarded by the petitioner. Sympathy shown by the industrial Tribunal, Rajkot is misplaced sympathy. The punishment cannot, be too nominal. Even in a past; a respondent conductor is in habit of committing similar type of misconduct, and, this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, and, hence, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, rajkot deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 3 ) THOUGH the rule is served, nobody is appearing for the respondent workman. The rule was issued on 4th February, 2005. Thereafter, on 11th March, 2005 also, the order was passed by this Court, nobody is appearing for the respondents and with a view to give one more chance to the respondent, the matter was adjourned, on 18th March, 2005, and, thereafter, the matter was all time adjourned with a view to give one chance to respondent. Lastly, on 23rd March, 2005, the order was passed that if respondent wants to avail of the opportunity to argue out the matter, it was kept on 31st March, 2005. Again, nobody had appeared. Thus time and again, the matter was adjourned. Today, when the matter was kept for dictation of judgement, nobody appeared for respondent workman, though the other side was served, ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record and the nature of misconduct committed by the respondent conductor, the award passed by the industrial Tribunal, Rajkot dated 25th June, 2004 in Reference (IT ; No. 24271999 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 petitioners 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 drives 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. Thus, for performance of its duties, petitioner Corporation is mainly concerned with drives 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. 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 Honble supreme Court in the case of REGIONAL manager, U. P. SRTC, ETAWAH AND others V/s. HOTILAL AND ANOTHER reported IN (2003) 3 SCC, 605. Para-10 of the said Judgment reads as under: "10. It needs to be emphasized 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 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 Courts 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/s. Crabtree ). A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. 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/s. Crabtree ). A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. A party appearing before, courts 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 helds 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 of 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 Honble Supreme Court has held that punishment of dismissal from service for misappropriation, by conductors is not shockingly disproportionate, and- therefore, such punishment shall not be interfered with in the present case in respect of termination of service. The punishment inflicted by the petitioner on respondent workman of stoppage, of three increments with future effect. The respondent though collected fares from fourteen passengers had not issued tickets, lesser-punishment had been inflicted by the petitioner. This has been further reduced by Industrial Tribunal, rajkot by replacing the said punishment by stoppage of two increments without future effect. This tantamount to uncall sympathy and powers exercised by Industrial Tribunal, rajkot under section 11-A is tantamount to excessive usage of powers. The punishments- imposed by the petitioner is not shockingly: disproportionate such punishment ought not to have been interfered by Industrial tribunal Rajkot. This tantamount to uncall sympathy and powers exercised by Industrial Tribunal, rajkot under section 11-A is tantamount to excessive usage of powers. The punishments- imposed by the petitioner is not shockingly: disproportionate such punishment ought not to have been interfered by Industrial tribunal Rajkot. (iv) In a similarly situated, Division bench of this Court, in the case of gujarat STATE ROAD TRANSPORT corporation V/s. 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 it 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 ease 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. 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. 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 crounch on the ground. There is another tormenting reason for viewing the matter with anxious eyes. The Public Sector can never (NEVER) succeed if everyones 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 mens collective property (if we envision for then 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 reindulge 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 ). 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/s. 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/s. 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 eventhough 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. Not only this, but the workman in the present case has not issued tickets to the two passengers eventhough 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 pre-planned 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. 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 HA of the Act. Similarly, the Honble Supreme court in the case of JANATHA BAZAR (SOUTH KANARA CENTRAL cooperative WHOLESALE STORES ltd.) AND OTHERS V/s. 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. 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. ( 7 ) 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 workman 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. Law on this point is well settled. (Re. Municipal committee, Bahadurgarh Vis. Krishnan behari ). In U. P. SRTC V/s. 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 e 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/s. 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 inflated 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. The Court held (at SCC pp. 161-62 para 45 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/s. B. S. HULLIKATTI REPORTED IN (2001) 2 scc, 574, the Honble 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-charging 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 fare 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. 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 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/s. A. T. MANE, REPORTED in JT 2 (04 (8) SC, 103, the Honble supreme Court has held in paras-4, 5 and 13 as under:" 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 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. "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. 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 primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating corporations fund, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal. ""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 honble 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 depend upon Public Exchequer of state of Gujarat. Driver and conductor are two most important posts of trust. 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 depend 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 Honble 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 honble 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 HA of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. ""keeping in mind the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the punishment awarded by the management of stoppage of three increments with future effect- ought not to be interfered by Industrial Tribunal, rajkot and ought to have appreciated that the punishment shall not be a name-sake punishment. Punishment must have deterrent effect on respondent workmen and also upon similarly situated workman. Punishment, set rights the weakness of mind of similarly situated workmen, Sympathy shown by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in reducing the punishment is uncalled and unwarranted. It is a misplaced sympathy shown by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, when the respondent workman was holding a post of trust and confidence. Honesty and integrity is so interwoven with the said post that in the case of misappropriation by such post holder, sympathy could not have been shown by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. Punishment in such type of cases upto dismissal has been upheld by the Supreme court and by this Court. Already a leniency has been shown by the petitioner. Further reduction in the punishment was not warranted keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, Hence, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in reference (IT) No. 242/1999 dated 25th June, 2004, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. .