R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR,J.:- Heard. The present appeal arises from the order and judgment dated 20-6-1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1732 of 1995. By the impugned order and judgment the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The said petition was filed against the judgment and order dated 10-01-1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati in ULPA No.25 of 1986. By the said order the Industrial Court, while allowing the revision application filed by the respondent, had set aside the order of dismissal passed by the appellant-Corporation and had directed reinstatement of the respondent with the continuity of service but without back wages. The said revision application was filed against the order of the Labour Court dated 0311-1982. The Labour Court vide its order dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent against the order of dismissal dated 11-02-1981 issued by the appellant-Corporation. The said order of dismissal was passed, by the Corporation, after holding necessary enquiry in accordance with the provisions of law and on the ground that the respondent was found having collected the ticket fare from three passengers without issuing tickets to the said passengers. The Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court came to the concurrent finding that the misconduct on the part of the respondent was clearly established in the enquiry, and therefore, no fault could be found with the enquiry. The Labour Court had found the punishment imposed on the respondent; in the facts and circumstances of the case, to be appropriate, however, since in revision application the Industrial Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement, the matter came up in the writ petition but without any success. Hence, the present appeal. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellant, placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Janatha Bazar, etc. V s. Secretary Sahakari Noukarana Sangha etc. - 2000(11) CLR 568; Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti - 2001(88) FLR 912; Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy & others - (2005)2 SCC 481 ; Regional Manager, U. P. STRTC, Etawath & others Vs. Hoti Lal & another - (2003)3 SCC 605 and T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. & others Vs. - 2000(11) CLR 568; Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti - 2001(88) FLR 912; Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy & others - (2005)2 SCC 481 ; Regional Manager, U. P. STRTC, Etawath & others Vs. Hoti Lal & another - (2003)3 SCC 605 and T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. & others Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006)2 SCC 255 , has submitted that the inquiry conducted in the matter having been found to be just and fair, there was no occasion for the Industrial Court to interfere in the punishment imposed by the management. He further submitted that the quantum of punishment is always a discretion of the management and unless it is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct established, the Industrial Court could not have interfered with the punishment imposed by the Corporation. In the case in hand, according to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the misappropriation clearly disclosed the misconduct of serious nature on the part of the respondent-Conductor, and that having been established, he had lost confidence of the management, and therefore, the order of dismissal of the respondent from the service could not have been interfered with and the punishment could have not been held to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. 3. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Scooters India Ltd., Lucknow Vs. Labour Court, Lucknow & others - 1989 SCC (L & S) 180; Colour-Chern Ltd. Vs. A.L. Alaspurkar & others - 1998(1) CLR 638 : [1998(2) ALL MR 73 (S.C.)] and of the Division Bench of this Court in Vikas Textiles Vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh - 1991(11) L.L.J. 451, has submitted that in absence of proper evidence regarding the stage at which the tickets were required to be issued, merely because the fare charges were collected, in absence of evidence of the time and alighting the bus and as to where the passengers had alighted the bus, was produced and clearly established by the Corporation, no fault could be found with the order passed by the Industrial Court, and therefore, the Industrial Court was justified in holding that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct in the matter. He further submitted that considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Scooter India Limited Vs. Labour Court, fair opportunity should be given to the employee to reform himself and to prove to be a loyal and disciplined employee. Considering the said laws which was laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Scooter India Ltd. Vs. Labour Court, the approach adopted by the Industrial Court in the matter of interfering with the punishment of dismissal which was imposed by the management could not be found fault with. 4. The only point which arises for consideration in the matter is; whether the Industrial Court was justified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the respondent by the Corporation on the proved facts of misconduct on the part of the respondent. 5. The concurrent findings of the Courts below disclose that the Corporation had issued the order of dismissal after holding fair and just enquiry regarding the charges of misconduct levelled against the respondent and based on the findings arrived at in such enquiry, the punishment of dismissal was imposed and the Labour Court had, therefore, refused to interfere in the said order of dismissal passed by the management. The Industrial Court, however, holding that the punishment of dismissal imposed was shockingly disproportionate, as the misappropriation, if any, was of smaller amount of money, the employee cannot be allowed to suffer to a miserable life along with his family members on account of said mistake committed by him. The law on the point that the Labour Court or Industrial Court cannot interfere in the punishment imposed by the management once the misconduct is duly established and unless the punishment is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct, is· well settled. Merely because the-misappropriated amount is smaller one, that by itself would not make misconduct to be of a minor nature, once it relates to the misappropriation of money. In case of misappropriation of money, the quantum of money is immaterial, and the conduct of the party in the regard is relevant to be seen. The Apex Court in T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai's case had held that: "........ In case of misappropriation of money, the quantum of money is immaterial, and the conduct of the party in the regard is relevant to be seen. The Apex Court in T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai's case had held that: "........ the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and therefore, in our opinion, the matter should be dealt with firmly with firm hands and not leniently. In the instant case, the respondent deals with public money and is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity and, therefore, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable...." 6. In Regional Manager, V.P. SRTC Vs. Hoti Lal's case the Apex Court had held that; "..........It is the responsibility of the bus conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Corporation. 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 ......." It was further held thus; "..........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......" 7. Again, in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy's case it was held that if the misconduct proved against the employee is of such a nature that it results in loss of confidence in such employee, then the punishment of dismissal from service issued against such a person cannot be found fault with. In the case of K.S.R.T. Corpn. Vs. B. S. Hullikatti, the Apex Court was dealing with the matter where the charge was that tickets were not issued by collecting 50 paise less than the fare amount. In that connection, the Apex Court held that: "..........It is misplaced sympathy by the labour courts in such cases when on checking, it is found that the 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 conducts to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Company....." 8. It is the responsibility of the bus conducts to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Company....." 8. Similarly, in Janatha Bazar Vs. Secy., Sahakari N. Sangha's case the Apex Court had held that the Labour Court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the employer in the case of proved misconduct relating to misappropriation of the amount, irrespective whether it is small or large amount. 9. Considering the law on the point in issue, it is absolutely clear that when a person is entrusted with a job of collecting money for the service rendered by the employer to the strangers, the employee has to perform his obligation of collecting the fees or the amount in accordance with his obligation as in terms of the contract between the employer and the employee, and once it is established that the employee has failed to perform his duties in accordance with the terms of the employment and thereby has misappropriated the amount whether small or large, he loses the confidence of the employer and in those circumstances imposition of penalty of dismissal from service, cannot be found fault with nor it can be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. The authorities below as well as the learned Single Judge totally ignored this settled principle of law and have acted beyond jurisdiction, and therefore, the impugned order, interfering with the imposition of penalty of dismissal, passed by the Industrial Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 10. Undoubtedly, in Scooters India Ltd. Vs. Labour Court & others the Apex Court had taken note of the view taken by the Labour Court that the justice must be tempered with mercy and that the erring workman should be given a opp0l1unity to reform himself and prove to be a loyal and disciplined employee of the petition company. However, it is not known as to in what facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court had made those observations, which were approved by the Apex Court. Unless the facts of the case, the points for determination are similar to the facts and points which arise in the case in hand, such observations cannot be of any help to the respondent to justify the order passed by the Industrial Court. 11. In Colour-Chem Ltd. Vs. Unless the facts of the case, the points for determination are similar to the facts and points which arise in the case in hand, such observations cannot be of any help to the respondent to justify the order passed by the Industrial Court. 11. In Colour-Chem Ltd. Vs. A. L. Alaspurkar & others the Apex Court was dealing with the case where the employees were found sleeping while on duty. That was not a case of misappropriation of amount. It is well settled that in order to apply the ratio of the judgment to another case which comes up before the Court for adjudication, it is always necessary to ascertain the facts, the points for determination which arose and the decision of the Court wherein the ratio has been laid down (vide Union of India & others Vs. Dhanwanti Devi & others - (1996)6 SCC 44 ). In the absence of similarity of facts and points, the ruling in the earlier decision can be hardly of any help. 12. As regards the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vikas textiles Vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh, it was on the issue of the power of Industrial Court under section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 and passed in the peculiar facts of the case, which were in no way similar to facts of the case in hand, and therefore, the ruling has no application in the matter in hand. 13. In the result, therefore, the learned Single Judge clearly erred in dismissing the petition against the order of the Industrial Court, whereby the Industrial court had sought to interfere in the order of punishment imposed upon the respondent on the basis of proved misconduct. There is absolutely no material on record to hold that the punishment, which was imposed upon the respondent, was shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. There is absolutely no material on record to hold that the punishment, which was imposed upon the respondent, was shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. On the contrary, the misconduct being related to the misappropriation of the money and resultant loss of confidence in the respondent by the management of the Corporation, the punishment could not have been said to be disproportionate to the proved misconduct and could not have been found fault with and hence, the impugned orders as well as the order passed by the' Industrial Court cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside while confirming the order passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the Industrial Court are set aside. The order dated 03-11-1982 passed by the Labour Court is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to the costs. 14. The learned Advocate for the respondent, at this stage, prays for stay to the order passed by this Court today. The same is opposed by the learned Advocate for the appellant. However, we are inclined to grant stay to the other for a period of eight weeks. Appeal allowed.