ORAL JUDGMENT ;- The first respondent was employed Conductor by the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking 9th May, 1978. At the material time, the first respondent was working. Conductor on the Ferry service which was plying between Manori and Acting on information that the first respondent had been collecting without issuing tickets to traveling passengers, a check was carried out November, 1987. The check of alighting passengers revealed that eight fourteen passengers had no tickets. The passengers stated that they had fare to the first respondent, but that he had not issued tickets although de When the inspectorial staff questioned the first respondent, it is alleged did not offer any reply. Signed statements of some of the passenger recorded in the presence of the first respondent. The "bag check" of respondent revealed that he was carrying an excess amount of Rs. 11.05. 2. The first respondent was charge-sheeted on 16th December, 198 Standing Order 20(c) ("Dishonesty in connection with the business Undertaking"); Standing Order 20U) ("Gross neglect of work"); and Standing Order 20(k) ("Breach of rules, regulations and instructions for the main and running of any department"). A departmental enquiry was convened is the first respondent was represented by a Union Representative. The Officer came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct stood establish The past record of the first respondent showed that punishments were important upon him for misconduct during the course of his service, some of them a similar nature. The first respondent was dismissed from service on 4 1988. The departmental appeal that was filed by the first respondent failed, he moved the Labour Court in an application under sections 78 an the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. 3. By an order dated 26th April, 1993, the Labour Court allow application and granted reinstatement with backwages to the first respondent The order of the Labour Court was challenged by the management in [Appeal (IC) No. 28 of 1993]. The Industrial Court set aside the order Labour Court and held that the finding of misconduct that was recorded disciplinary enquiry was not perverse. However, the proceedings were re back to the Labour Court to decide as to whether the punishment disproportionate. On remand the Labour Court, by an order dated December, 1993, came to the conclusion that the imposition of a punishments was disproportionate. However, the proceedings were re back to the Labour Court to decide as to whether the punishment disproportionate. On remand the Labour Court, by an order dated December, 1993, came to the conclusion that the imposition of a punishments was disproportionate. An order of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service was passed. The Undertaking carried the matter in he Industrial Court by its order dated 7th August, 2001, modified the Labour Court. While confirming the order of reinstatement with of service, the Industrial Court reduced the quantum of backwages to 50%. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that each of the that weighed with the Labour Court was specious. The charge upon e finding of misconduct rested was a serious charge involving the of the Undertaking Counsel submitted that in view of the settled of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the interference of the Labour the disciplinary jurisdiction was clearly not warranted. The Industrial court having found an error on the part of the Labour Court ought to have set order of reinstatement and backwages in its entirety. 5. The first respondent has not appeared in these proceedings. The ion before the Labour Court was filed by the Second respondent on the first respondent. The report of the Bailiff shows that the Second respondent has been served. 6. There is merit in the submission that has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the judgment of the Labour Court suffers from a clear and patent perversity. The Labour Court noted in the course of the order on remand that the conduct was proved. The only question which remained for the Labour Court determine on remand whether the punishment of dismissal was rtionate. The Labour Court has adverted to several punishments that posed on the first respondent in the past. However, the Labour Court fault with the Undertaking on the ground that for similar misconduct in the lighter punishment had been imposed. According to the Labour Court, missal of an employee on account of a defalcation of an amount of Rs. II/- justified. The Labour Court held that the misconduct was not so grave as ant a dismissal from service. Ex facie the reasons which weighed with the Court were unfounded and specious. A charge against a Conductor of a rt Undertaking of collecting fares from passengers without issuing tickets e and serious. II/- justified. The Labour Court held that the misconduct was not so grave as ant a dismissal from service. Ex facie the reasons which weighed with the Court were unfounded and specious. A charge against a Conductor of a rt Undertaking of collecting fares from passengers without issuing tickets e and serious. The Conductor in the present case was also found with an of cash in his possession. The Undertaking was justified in drawing an excess that since passengers from whom fares were collected were not issued the charge of misconduct was duly established in the enquiry. That being the position, it would not be possible to hold that the punishment was disproportionate. The Industrial Court in the course of its judgment was of the that the punishment had been set aside on a "flimsy ground". But, the discipline Court also proceeded to re-evaluate the merits of the charge in the disproportionate proceedings and held that the Enquiry Officer had not "concentrated point of wrong collection of the fare". Similarly, the Industrial Court in that the "procedural aspect regarding awarding Identity Card to the employees had not been taken into consideration" and the "raiding staff themselves were not knowing the exact procedure for collecting the fare". The Industrial Court was patently in error in reopening the merits of the finding of duct which was already settled by the Industrial Court in its earlier order. The remand of the earlier proceedings was on the question of disproportionality of the punishment. In these circumstances, there is merit in the submission has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Industrial Court was in declining to set aside the judgment of the Labour Court. 7. The Supreme Court has considered issues similar to those which raised in the present proceedings. In Kamataka State Road Transport Co B. S. Hullikatti, (2001) 2 SCC 574 a Bus Conductor engaged by a Transport Undertaking was found to have collected fare at a particular trip at the rat 2.25, but had issued tickets of a denomination of Rs. 1.75. The Supreme Court has considered issues similar to those which raised in the present proceedings. In Kamataka State Road Transport Co B. S. Hullikatti, (2001) 2 SCC 574 a Bus Conductor engaged by a Transport Undertaking was found to have collected fare at a particular trip at the rat 2.25, but had issued tickets of a denomination of Rs. 1.75. The Labour aside the punishment of dismissal which order was confirmed by the High The Supreme Court held that the principle of res ipsa loquitur was app The Supreme Court held that charging 50 paise per ticket more from as 35 passengers could only be to obtain financial benefits by the Conduct act was held to be either dishonest or to be so grossly negligent t Conductor was not fit to be retained in service. The Supreme Court ca against misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases w checking, it is found that a Bus Conductor has either not issued tickets to number of passengers or has issued tickets of a lower denomination fully well the correct fare to be charged. The Court has held as follows: "It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases w checking it is found that the Bus Conductors have either not tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the Bus Conduct collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same the company. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the of amount offare." (emphasis supplied). The same view has been reiterated in Regional Manager, UPSRTC Eta Hoti Lal, 2003(1) CLR 712 wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: "It needs to be emphasised that the Court or tribunal while dealing the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt the punishment is not commensurate with the proved charges. As has been highlighted in several cases to which reference has been above, the Scope for interference is very limited and restrict exceptional cases in the indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, present case as the quoted extracts of the High Courts order would show, no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to which punishment was considered disproportionate. As has been highlighted in several cases to which reference has been above, the Scope for interference is very limited and restrict exceptional cases in the indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, present case as the quoted extracts of the High Courts order would show, no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to which punishment was considered disproportionate. Reasons are live between the mind of the decision taken to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons a to denial of justice. (SCC Alexander Machinery Dudley Ltd. vs. Cr 1974 LCR 120). A mere statement that it is disproportionate would suffice. It is not only the amount involved but the mental set u type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which g 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, highest degree of integrity and I trustworthiness is must and unexceptionable." (emphasis supplied). 8. Having regard to these settled principles of law, the orders passed by the below are clearly unsustainable. The charge of misconduct has been duly be established. The charge is grave and serious. The past record of the was not free from taint. On numerous occasions in the past punishments were imposed. In fact, in Janata Bazar vs. Secretary, Sahakari rara Sangha Etc., 2000(11) CLR 568 the Supreme Court held that in case of proved misappropriation, there is no question of considering past record. However, in this case, even the past record was not clean. 9. In these circumstances, this petition has to be allowed and is accordingly ed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). The orders of the labour Court dated 29th December, 1993 and of the Industrial Court dated 7th st, 2001 are quashed and set aside. The Petition is disposed of in the said terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.