Judgment K.M. Thaker, J.—By present petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 30.07.1993 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1613 of 1991 where by the Labour Court has directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the respondent (who, at the relevant time, was working as conductor), however, declined to grant relief of back wages and other benefits. Aggrieved by the direction to reinstate the respondent, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. On perusal of the award it becomes clear that this case is glaring instance of misplaced sympathy. 3. The respondent has been served by affixation, despite such service, no one on behalf of respondent ahs entered appearance. Hence the matter is decided in absence of respondent. 4. The respondent was aggrieved by dismissal order dated 21.6.1990 by which his service was terminated. It was alleged that after receiving fare from the passengers, the respondent did not issue tickets. In view of such reported misconduct, a charge-sheet was issued and departmental inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer held that the charges were proved in the departmental inquiry. Hence the petitioner Corporation, considering the respondent’s past service record and the gravity of misconduct, dismissed the respondent. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent raised industrial dispute which culminated into aforesaid reference. The reference was opposed by the petitioner Corporation by filing its written statement and producing on record the documents of departmental inquiry as well as other relevant documents. After examining to record of the departmental inquiry, legality and the propriety of which came to be admitted by the respondent, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that charge levelled against the respondent was proved. However, the Court being of the view that the penalty was disproportionate, exercised the jurisdiction under Section 11-A and directed the petitioner corporation to reinstate the respondent. 6. From the award it comes out that the respondent had, initially changed the legality of the inquiry, however subsequently has dropped the challenge and has admitted the legality of the inquiry. 7. It was also brought on the record before the Labour Court, from the past record of the respondent that the respondent was involved in similar misconduct earlier also, and in past the corporation was requited to terminate the service of the respondent, however, subsequently he was reinstated in view of the award passed by the Labour Court. 7. It was also brought on the record before the Labour Court, from the past record of the respondent that the respondent was involved in similar misconduct earlier also, and in past the corporation was requited to terminate the service of the respondent, however, subsequently he was reinstated in view of the award passed by the Labour Court. The about Court has also recorded to the conclusion that the penalty imposed by the corporation was prima facie appropriate. Yet, upon considering that the penalty would result into unemployment of the respondent and that too during the time when there was wide spread unemployment, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent so that he may at least not be rendered unemployment. 8. Mr. Mayur Pandya, learned Senior Advocate has appeared and assailed the award and contended that the respondent is habituated in not issuing tickets after collecting fares and has been found guilty of such misconduct in past also. He submitted that even if the past record is not to be taken into account, the gravity of the misconduct which was charged, and has been proved, cannot be over-looked or diluted and that the proved misconduct, independent and divorced form past record also, was serious to entail penalty of termination. He submitted that considering the gravity of the misconduct, the penalty imposed by the Corporation is just and proper and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the misconduct. He submitted that the Labour Court has shown undue sympathy. It is beyond doubt that the misconduct is serious enough and the penalty imposed by the Corporation cannot be, any yardstick considered as harsh or disproportionate. It has been held that in the cases where the departmental inquiry is held to be legal and proper and the finding of the Inquiry Officer are also approved and accepted by the Court and the charges are proved, undue sympathy should not be shown in exercise of powers under Section 11–A. It has also been held that such powers should be exercised judiciously and with much care and caution. 9. In present case, there is no discussion as to on what basis and for which reasons the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the penalty imposed by employer was too harsh. No reasons are recorded. 9. In present case, there is no discussion as to on what basis and for which reasons the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the penalty imposed by employer was too harsh. No reasons are recorded. Once the charges are proved, the Court would normally not interfere with the decision regarding quantum of penalty, and the Court would also not substitute its own decision regarding quantum of penalty unless the penalty is found to be so excessive which would amount to victimisation. 10. Since the award passed by the Labour Court is devoid of and bereft of any reasonings and discussions as to how the Labour Court found penalty excessive, the said decision cannot be sustained. The decision requiring the Corporation to reinstate the respondent who ahs been found guilty of not issuing tickets even after collecting the fares cannot be sustained, the said direction deserves to be quashed and set aside. Consequently the impugned award is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.