JUDGMENT : H.K. Rathod, J. Heard learned Advocate Mr. J.S. Brahmbhatt for the petitioner and Mr. Hardik C. Raval, learned Advocate for the respondent-Corporation. 2. Through this petition, petitioner workman has challenged the award made by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference No. 47 of 2004 dated 30.3.2005 wherein the Labour Court has rejected the said reference. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner conductor has not misappropriated the amounts from the passengers and he was about to issue tickets, bus was checked by the checking squad. As per his submission, no independent witness was examined for proving the charge against the petitioner. There was no sufficient evidence against the petitioner to prove the misconduct of collection of fare without issuance of tickets. He also submits that findings given by the Labour Court are baseless and perverse. As per his submission, the Labour Court has committed error in not exercising the powers under section 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947. He also submits that at the time of checking, eight passengers were found without tickets out of 35 passengers travelling in the bus. In short, it was his submission that the Labour Court has committed an error in not granting relief in favour of the petitioner-workman. No other submission was made by learned Advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt except the above submissions and no decision was cited by him before this Court in support of the aforesaid submissions. 4. On the other hand, Mr. H.C. Raval, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-Corporation has submitted that the labour Court was right in deciding and rejecting the reference made at the instance of the petitioner. He also submits that the labour Court was right in not exercising the powers under section 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947. As per his submission, in view of the purshis filed by the petitioner before the labour Court at Exh. 34 admitting legality, validity and propriety of the departmental inquiry held against the petitioner, the only question was to be decided by the labour Court as to whether the punishment imposed by the Corporation was just and proper or not and labour Court was right in examining the said question. As per his submission, labour Court has rightly examined that the finding recorded by the inquiry officer is legal and valid. As per his submission, labour Court has rightly examined that the finding recorded by the inquiry officer is legal and valid. As per his submission, labour Court was right in passing the award in question considering the past record and present misconduct committed by the petitioner and, therefore, award in question does not require any interference and therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties. I have also perused the impugned award made by the labour Court, Surat. 6. While the petitioner was on duty as a conductor on 20.10.2001 on Route Ahwa to Adajan on Bus No. 5190, at that time, said bus was checked at 16.00 hours at Valvada. At that time, there were total 35+1 passengers in the bus. It was alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner not issued ticket to one passenger from Anaval to Mahuva and one passenger from Vansda to Mahuva though recovered fare from those passengers. It was also alleged against the petitioner that from 5+1 passengers of three different groups, petitioner recovered the amount of fare of Rs. 80+Rs.82+Rs,60 and then, instead of issuing tickets as per prescribed rate of Rs. 41/- to them, issued tickets of Rs.8+ Rs.8+ Rs. 6 and thereby issued tickets of the less amount of Rs.74 + Rs.74 + Rs. 57/-. It was also alleged against the petitioner that from two passengers from Vansda to Bardoli, though fare of Rs. 50/- was recovered from them, instead of issuing ticket at the prescribed rate of Rs. 25/-, petitioner issued tickets of Rs. 14/- alone to them and thus, issued ticket of less amount of Rs. 36/- and from one passenger travelling from Ahwa to Valvada, after recovering regular fare of Rs. 32/-, issued ticket of Rs. 5/- to them and thereby issued less ticket of Rs. 27/- and thus, after recovering fare from different passengers, not issued total tickets of Rs. 305/- and, thereby committed serious type of financial dishonesty. For the alleged misconduct, petitioner was served with charge-sheet on 5.12.2001 and thereafter, departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and after completion of the departmental inquiry, petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of the aforesaid charges levelled against him which was challenged by the petitioner by raising an industrial dispute. 7. Before the labour Court, vide Exh. For the alleged misconduct, petitioner was served with charge-sheet on 5.12.2001 and thereafter, departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and after completion of the departmental inquiry, petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of the aforesaid charges levelled against him which was challenged by the petitioner by raising an industrial dispute. 7. Before the labour Court, vide Exh. 34, petitioner filed specific purshis and thereby not challenged legality, validity and propriety of the departmental inquiry and challenged the findings given by the competent authority. This aspect has been rightly appreciated by the labour Court and came to the conclusion that the signature of the petitioner was obtained by the checking staff on the statements of passengers which has been proved by the Corporation by way of oral evidence of the reporter in departmental inquiry and on that basis, charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. Petitioner has not examined any defence witness in departmental inquiry. Even in spot statement also, no explanation is given by the petitioner as to why he has not issued tickets to those passengers as alleged after recovering amount of fare from them. The only defence was that Bus was express and road booking was going on but considering distance from Ahwa to Valvada, labour Court has not believed said defence and rejected defence of the petitioner. Ultimately, labour Court considered past record of the petitioner vide Exh.33 wherein four misconducts were there and at the time of checking, as per the cross examination of reporter, conductor of the bus was sitting on the seat. In view of that, defence of the conductor that he was issuing tickets to the passengers at the time of checking has not been believed by the labour Court after considering the evidence on record. 8. Labour Court has considered certain decisions of this Court and apex Court wherein it has been observed that when the misconduct of dishonesty and misappropriation is proved, the labour Court should not interfere with the punishment of dismissal imposed by the employer because in such cases, one incident of dishonesty or misappropriation is enough for dismissal. 9. Considering the reasoning given by the labour Court, according to my opinion, labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and in such cases, when dishonesty and misappropriation is proved, question of modification of dismissal order does not arise. 9. Considering the reasoning given by the labour Court, according to my opinion, labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and in such cases, when dishonesty and misappropriation is proved, question of modification of dismissal order does not arise. Post of Conductor is the post of faith and confidence. Any sympathy with such conductor is considered to be misplaced sympathy because ultimately revenue of the Corporation is lost because of recovery of the amount of fare from passengers by conductor without issuing tickets to those passengers 10. The post of Conductor is a post of confidence and faith and they should have to maintain the integrity which save the revenue of Corporation. If Conductor permitted to misappropriate the amount, then, it is very difficult for Corporation to run administration smoothly. In such cases, the competent authority must have to pass proper punishment, so, repeated misconduct may not be committed by any employee. That view has been taken by Apex Court and High Court recently in reported decision (i) 2006 AIR SCW 3713, (ii) 2006 SCC Lab. & Service 1185, (iii) JT 2006 (7) SC 200, (iv) 2006 (8) SCC 108 , (v) 2006 (11) Scale 316 , (vi) 2006 (1) LLJ 1004 SC (vii) 2007 (2) LLJ 872 Bombay, (viii) 2007(2) LLJ 948 Delhi. 11. Recently, the Apex Court in case of Bank of India and others v. T. Jogram, 2007 AIR SCW 5069, has taken the view in Para 13 and 14 which is quoted as under: "13. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1996 (72) FLR 316 (SC), a three Judge Bench of this Court held in Paragraph 12 as under :- [See : (1995) AIR SCW 4374] "Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of factor conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act, fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent that the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case." 14. In the case of Regional Manager, U.P. S.R.T.C. v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605 , the apex Court observed at p.614 SCC as under: "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 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 learned Single Judge upholding the order of dismissal." 12. Recently, in case of The Depot Manager APSRTC v. B. Swami, 2007 AIR SCW 4930, it has been observed in para 7, as under: "7. We set aside the same and restore order of learned Single Judge upholding the order of dismissal." 12. Recently, in case of The Depot Manager APSRTC v. B. Swami, 2007 AIR SCW 4930, it has been observed in para 7, as under: "7. We fail to understand how the incident could be characterised as accidental. The mere fact that this was the first occasion when the respondent was caught, is no ground to hold that it was accidental. What weighed with the learned Judges was the fact that the respondent had not found to be involved in such irregularities earlier. In our view that is not very material in the facts of this case. A conductor of a bus enjoys the faith reposed in him. He accepts the responsibility of honesty collecting fares from the passengers after issuing proper tickets and is obliged to account for the money so collected. If conductors were to be dishonest in the performance of their duties, it would cause serious pecuniary loss to the employer. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in observing that the management gave "excess gravity" to the offence. We are constrained to observe that the High Court was not justified in characterizing the order of the management as one induced by exaggeration of the gravity of the offence. The conductor performs only the duty of issuing tickets to the passengers and accounting for the fare collected from the passengers to the management. If he is dishonest in the performance of his duties, he is guilty of serious misconduct and the gravity of the misconduct cannot be minimised by the fact that he was not earlier caught indulging in such dishonest conduct. There is no guarantee that he had not acted dishonestly in the past as well which went undetected. Even one act of dishonesty amounting to breach of faith may invite serious punishment." 13. There is no guarantee that he had not acted dishonestly in the past as well which went undetected. Even one act of dishonesty amounting to breach of faith may invite serious punishment." 13. Therefore, considering the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and considering the facts of this case, post of conductor is a post of confidence and faith and little breach of such confidence and faith would shaken the confidence and faith and therefore, according to my opinion, Labour Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and has rightly passed the award in question and same would not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed. In result, this petition is dismissed.