JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. In this petition, the State Road Transport Corporation has challenged award dated 3.9.2004 whereby the Labour Court, Surat has partly allowed the reference and has directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent in service. 2. However, the Labour Court has declined to grant the benefit or relief of back wages and has imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. In other words, by virtue of the impugned award, the Labour Court has, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, substituted the penalty of termination by penalty of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect and has declined the benefit or relief of back wages for intervening period. The direction requiring the corporation to reinstate the respondent is brought under challenge by the petitioner corporation. 3. The respondent was working as conductor with the petitioner corporation and had put in service of 26 years with the petitioner corporation before he came to be terminated by order dated 26.4.2002. It comes out from the award that as per the charges levelled against the respondent by charge sheet dated 18.2.2001, the respondent had not issued ticket to one of the ten passengers though he had collected fare from the said passenger. In connection with the said charge, a departmental inquiry was conducted pursuant to which the inquiry officer submitted his report. After considering the evidence on record of the departmental inquiry and the findings of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of termination of service by order dated 26.4.2002. 4. Aggrieved by the said action of the petitioner corporation, the respondent raised an industrial dispute which came to be referred by order of reference dated 13.10.2003 and culminated into Reference (LCS) No. 290 of 2003. During the pendency of the proceeding, the respondent admitted the legality and propriety of the departmental inquiry and also stipulated that he was ready and wiling to forgo the back wages. During the pendency of the proceeding, the respondent admitted the legality and propriety of the departmental inquiry and also stipulated that he was ready and wiling to forgo the back wages. The Labour Court upon taking into account the said stipulation of the respondent that he was ready and willing to forgo the claim for back wages and upon considering that the misconduct in question was the first and solitary instance of that nature, although various misconducts of diverse nature have been recorded in the default card in the total tenure of the respondent's service, came to the conclusion that the case of the respondent was fit case for exercising powers under Section 11A of the Act and that the penalty imposed upon the respondent was disproportionate, harsh and non-commensurate to the misconduct. Upon arriving at such a conclusion, the Labour Court considered it appropriate to substitute the penalty in exercise of powers under Section 11A of the Act and while setting aside the penalty of termination, has imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. In view of the stipulation of the respondent workman, the Labour Court has also declined the benefit of back wages for the intervening period. 5. Ms. Monali Bhatt has appeared for the petitioner and submitted that the direction by the Labour Court requiring the corporation to reinstate the respondent is unjust and deserves to be set aside. She referred to the default card and submitted that actually there are almost 94 instances of default recorded against the respondent and that therefore, the penalty imposed by the petitioner corporation terminating the service of the respondent was just and proper and the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the same or ought not to have substituted the same. She, however, could not dispute the finding of the learned Labour Court that the misconduct of the nature levelled in present case does not find place in the default card. 6. It deserves to be mentioned that in the present case, the Labour Court has substituted the penalty and has imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect for the misconduct of non-issuing ticket to one passenger after receiving fare. The relief or benefit of back wages has been denied to the respondent. The period in question, in present case, is of 2 years and 5 months. The relief or benefit of back wages has been denied to the respondent. The period in question, in present case, is of 2 years and 5 months. Thus, the direction for reinstatement would entail obligation on the corporation to pay gratuity for the period from 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 and probably seniority but would not entail any other monetary obligation since the relief or benefit of back wages has been denied to the respondent. 7. The Labour Court has also recorded that in view of the respondent admitting the legality of the inquiry, it was required to consider that whether the findings were perverse and whether the penalty was disproportionate. On the first count, the Labour Court has not accepted the submission of the respondent and has held that the findings cannot be said to be perverse. However, considering the fact that the default card did not contain any misconduct of similar nature, the Labour Court found that though there were number of other defaults recorded in the default card, this was first instance of such a nature. The learned Labour Court, therefore, considered it appropriate to substitute the penalty of termination by imposing penalty of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. Any ground to interfere with the said conclusion or exercise of powers under Section 11A has not been made out. Normally, when the Court finds that the inquiry was conducted in legal and fair manner and the charges are proved, it would not interfere with the penalty and would not sit in appeal over the decision of the disciplinary authority unless it comes to the conclusion that the penalty is disproportionate. 8. In the present case, the Labour Court has recorded reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the penalty was disproportionate and no ground to find fault with the said reasoning and conclusion of the Labour Court is made out. Hence, this Court is of the view that in light of the facts of the present case, there is no justification to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court, more particularly, when the Labour Court has weighed the facts and itself has imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect, considering that penalty of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect would commensurate the misconduct. The Labour Court considered the said penalty as sufficient and proper having regard to the misconduct. The Labour Court considered the said penalty as sufficient and proper having regard to the misconduct. In the facts of the case and in absence of any strong reason justifying interference with the said discretion of the Labour Court, this Court is of the view that the award does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of limited jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution. The award does not suffer from error of jurisdiction and it is not possible to hold that the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction arbitrarily or without application of mind. Hence, the present petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed.