JUDGMENT :- By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Labour Court Akola on 2.4.2001 and that passed by the Industrial Court Akola on 2.9.2002 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Labour Court dated 2.4.2001. 2] The respondent no.1 had filed a complaint under section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Labour Court. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that while he was working as a Conductor on the bus from Adilabad to Akola Road, on 10.11.1987 the bus was checked by the checking party at Borgaon Manju. It was found that some scorings and overwriting was made in the way-bill. It was the case of the corporation that the respondent no.1 had misbehaved with the Checking Officer. It was the case of the corporation that the respondent had misappropriated an amount of Rs.135.50 by making scorings in the way-bill. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the respondent no.1 and he was dismissed from service by an order dated 21.12.1988. The respondent no.1 had challenged the dismissal order before the Labour Court alleging unfair labour practice by the petitioner corporation. 3] The Labour Court, on an appreciation of the material on record came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the corporation against the respondent no. 1 was fair and proper. The Labour Court held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of some of the charges were perverse,but findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of charges no.10 and 29 were legal and proper. The Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the act of misconduct committed by the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 was therefore, entitled to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages. The petitioner corporation as well as the respondent no.1 filed separate revisions before the Industrial Court, Akola. Both these revisions were however, dismissed. 4] Shri S.C. Mehadia, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts were not justified in directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no.1 in service as they had categorically recorded a finding that the enquiry conducted by the corporation was fair and proper and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on some of the charges were not perverse. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge of misbehavior with the Checking Officer and the raiding party was duly proved and in such circumstances, the Labour and Industrial Court were not justified in holding that the punishment imposed by the corporation was shockingly disproportionate to the act of misconduct committed by the respondent no.1. 5] Shri Jagdale, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the orders passed by both the courts, so far as they directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no.1 in service with continuity of service. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the charge of making scoring and overwriting on the waybill was not proved and the only charge proved against the respondent no.1 was regarding the misbehavior with the Checking Officer and in such circumstances, the courts were justified in holding that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the act of misconduct committed by the respondent no.1. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that both the courts have rightly recorded the findings in favour of the respondent no.1 on a proper appreciation of the evidence and the same may not be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the respondent no.1 is ready to give up the back wages for the period from 2.4.2001 till he was actually reinstated by the petitioners in service. 6] I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the impugned orders passed by the Labour & Industrial Court. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the act of misconduct committed by the respondent no.1. Many charges were leveled against the petitioner and the enquiry officer had held that those charges were proved. The Labour Court, however, found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer in regard to most of the charges were perverse and the respondent no.1 was guilty of misbehavior with the Checking Officer and the raiding party. Since it was held by Labour Court that only two of the charges levelled against the respondent no.1 were proved, the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges proved against the respondent no.1. Since it was held by Labour Court that only two of the charges levelled against the respondent no.1 were proved, the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges proved against the respondent no.1. The Labour Court and the Industrial Court considered the various judgments on this aspect to hold that the punishment could not have been imposed in the facts and circumstance of the case. Since the respondent no.1 was in service for a period of 20 years and since only the charge of misbehavior was proved, the Labour Court rightly directed the petitioner – corporation to reinstate the respondent no.1 in service with continuity of service but without back wages. There is no reason to interfere with the findings recoded by the Industrial Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 7] In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.