ORDER Heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties and perused the material on record. It is alleged that on 28-11-1995 at 6.30 a.m. when petitioner was conducting the KSRTC, bus plying on route Hosavaranchi to Mysore, he failed to issue tickets to 12 passengers despite collecting fare and that he had not collected the fare from 18 passengers and not issued tickets to them. Based on the said charge, he was subjected to domestic enquiry. In the said enquiry, the charges were held to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority based on the enquiry report and after applying its mind independently to the facts of the Case dismissed the workman from service. The workman raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act' for short) before the Labour Court, wherein it is held that the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was fair and proper and that the charges are proved. Consequently, the Labour Court confirmed the punishment imposed by the management. Aggrieved by it, the workman-petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that when the petitioner was in the process of issuing tickets, the bus was checked and that therefore, there is no lapse on the part of the petitioner and consequently, the order of dismissal passed against the workman petitioner is bad in the eye of law. 3. It is not in dispute that the bus which was being conducted by the workman-petitioner was checked by the inspecting team at Ratnapuri Colony at 6.30 a.m. on 28-11-1995. The inspecting staff found that 12 passengers were not issued tickets despite collecting fare. It is further found that the workman neither collected fare nor issued tickets to 18 passengers. Immediately the checking squad recorded the statement of the leader of said 12 members group to whom the tickets were not issued despite collection of fare. The statement of the group leader is marked as Ex. M. 1 and the workman has signed said statement at Ex. M. 1(a). The penalty was also imposed on the passengers. The penalty receipt is marked as Ex. M. 2 and the signature of the delinquent conductor found on penalty receipt is marked as Ex. M. 2(a). The statement of the group leader is marked as Ex. M. 1 and the workman has signed said statement at Ex. M. 1(a). The penalty was also imposed on the passengers. The penalty receipt is marked as Ex. M. 2 and the signature of the delinquent conductor found on penalty receipt is marked as Ex. M. 2(a). The statement of the group leader of ticketless passengers amply discloses that the said passengers paid requisite fare to the conductor and inspite of the same, the tickets are not issued to them Added to it as aforesaid, the conductor has not issued tickets to 18 passengers and not collected fare from them Consequently penalty was levied against them also and the penalty receipts are marked as Exs. M. 3 and M. 4. The unpunched tickets were recovered from the conductor and they were marked as Ex. M. 5. The bus was checked at Ratnapuri Colony, which was the stage point. It is also found by the Labour Court that at the time of checking, the bus was stopped at Ratnapuri Colony and the passengers were alighting from the bus. Under such circumstances, the explanation offered by the workman-petitioner that he was about to issue tickets to the passengers cannot be accepted inasmuch as, those ticketless passengers were coming from Hosavaranchi to Ratnapuri Colony. Even when the passengers were alighting from the bus, 30 passengers were found to be not issued with tickets. There is no reason as to why the conductor should fail to issue tickets to passengers, till the passengers finally alighted from the bus. The reason is obvious that the workmen will collect the fare from such passengers and misappropriate for his own use. It cannot be said that the inaction of non-issuing of tickets and non-collecting fare on the part of the conductor is innocent or bona fide. Hence, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, made in this regard. 4. The material available on record amply discloses that the workman has failed to issue tickets to 12 passengers despite collecting fare from them and he has neither collected fare nor issued tickets to 18 other passengers and thereby caused revenue loss to the Corporation. 4. The material available on record amply discloses that the workman has failed to issue tickets to 12 passengers despite collecting fare from them and he has neither collected fare nor issued tickets to 18 other passengers and thereby caused revenue loss to the Corporation. The records further disclose that the petitioner is involved in 43 similar cases of misconduct earlier, out of which, in 39 cases, fine has been imposed on him. The main duty of the conductor is to issue tickets by collecting requisite fare. In view of the proved misconduct of mis appropriation of the revenue of the Public Transport Corporation, the Corporation is justified in loosing confidence in the petitioner. Looking to the gravity of the charges proved against the workman petitioner herein and his past history i.e., his involvement in as many as 39 cases of similar misconduct, the Labour Court has rightly concurred with the conclusion reached by Disciplinary Authority. Looking to the severe nature of the charges, which are proved, the Labour Court has rightly declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently, con finned the order of dismissal of rejecting the dispute. Since the misconduct of the petitioner was one of dishonesty, the quantum of loss to the Corporation is immaterial, and it was loss of confidence that matters. Thus, the punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct of the petitioner. As has been held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v A.K. Chopra" that unless the punishment imposed is ether impermissible" or such that it shocks the conscience of the Court, the High Court should not normally substitute its own finding or opinion and impose some other punishment 5. On reconsideration of the entire material on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. The reasons assigned and conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court cannot be said to be erroneous under the facts of the case. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.