JUDGMENT : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. Heard Shri Nirav Sanghavi for Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Rathod, learned advocate for respondent. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award dated 11.3.1993 passed by the Industrial Court, Rajkot in Reference (ITR) No. 173 of 1991, whereby, the Tribunal has modified the original penalty and punishment of reducing the workman to his original pay scale for three years on account of his misconduct of leaving duty and imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect. 2. This matter has been admitted as Rule was issued on 6.4.1994 and interim relief in terms of Para- 9(C) was granted. 3. Facts in brief deserve to be set out as under. The workman received charge sheet for his misconduct of leaving the bus when he was on duty as a conductor on 12.8.1988 on receipt of some news of serious ailment of his son. The concerned workman was discharging his duty as Conductor on 12.8.1988 on bus NO. 6939 at 20-00 hrs. When the checking party intercepted the bus, it was found that there was no conductor in the bus and bus was going ahead without conductor. On inquiring with the driver, it was revealed that the workman had alighted from bus on account of ailment of his son and because of this, the bus could not travelled further. On proving the misconduct, the Corporation imposed penalty of reduction of workman to his original pay scale for three years, where under as noted by the Court, the workman was to suffer economic loss of Rs.32,794/-. This was considered to be a very harsh and disproportionate punishment and therefore, it was modified by impugned order dated 11.3.1993 by the Labour Court of punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect, which is impugned in this petition. 4. Shri Sanghavi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that when the Labour Court has recorded its findings very clearly with regard to seriousness of misconduct of leaving the bus and not attending the bus, it ought not to have been substituted the penalty on account it being disproportionate. 5. 4. Shri Sanghavi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that when the Labour Court has recorded its findings very clearly with regard to seriousness of misconduct of leaving the bus and not attending the bus, it ought not to have been substituted the penalty on account it being disproportionate. 5. Shri Rathod, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has vehemently submitted that the order impugned can be said to be an order passed by the Court exercising its discretionary power and once the discretionary powers are exercised after taking into consideration all facts attending the case, this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may not interfere with the said findings. Shri Rathod further submitted that reason for leaving the bus was for ailment rather serious ailment of his son and that itself should have weighed with the authority in the first instance for imposing penalty. As the authority did not considered the same and imposed punishment of original pay scale for 3 years to the respondent, the same amounted to causing tremendous economic loss which cannot be said to be appropriate looking to the misconduct in question. Shri Rathod further submitted that the Court may imposed even more penalty instead of stopping of one increment with future effect to two increments with future effect but the petition may otherwise is required to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 7. The fact remains that the order of substitution of penalty impugned in this petition is one of discretion exercised by the court in its discretionary powers but looking to the gravity of misconduct of leaving the bus on account of ailment of the son, cannot be said to be such a misconduct which would call for any lessor punishment. The punishment was imposed by the Corporation of reduction of the workman to his original pay scale for three years, according to this Court cannot be said to be disproportionate at all. The cause for leaving the bus is said to be ailment of his son. The punishment was imposed by the Corporation of reduction of the workman to his original pay scale for three years, according to this Court cannot be said to be disproportionate at all. The cause for leaving the bus is said to be ailment of his son. It was not the case that there was such a circumstances which warranted his leaving the bus unattended and in fact, there cannot be any circumstances which warranted the bus conductor to leave his bus half way without permission of his superior when he was discharging duty of public conveyance and bus was moving on the road. The discretion exercised by the Court in reduction of the penalty cannot be said to be just and proper and in accordance with law. Therefore, such a discretionary order becomes absolutely vulnerable and deserves to be quashed and set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.