JUDGMENT D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J : This appeal by the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation is a typical example of mismanagement and apathy on the part of employer in allowing otherwise a proper order of dismissal inflicted on a chronic mis-conducting conductor being interfered by the Courts in the remedial provisions provided to such a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and while the order of dismissal was found to be wanting by the Labour Court for the reason that the initiation of the enquiry in respect of pilferage of non-issue of tickets to the passenger during a check conducted on 07.04.1993, being belated by as many as six years and only on that ground, the tribunal though found the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, has nevertheless interfered with the punishment in the name of exercising its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and modified the punishment into only denial of back wages and nothing else and the Corporation being unable to wriggle out of this order in W.P.No.10148/2006 and having received the order dismissing the writ petition, have persuade their efforts in this writ appeal, realizing that allowing a chronic mis-conducting conductor to be in service is most detrimental to the interest of the Corporation. 2. There is a delay of 56 days in filing the appeal and an application is filed seeking for condonation of delay. 3. Delay being explained we could have called upon the respondent to answer the application and the appeal. As we have noticed that the Corporation has not maintained an uniform stand with regard to allowing an erring employee to work, and is therefore unable to make good its stand, that allowing such an erring employee to work in the Corporation is detrimental to the interest of the Corporation, we are not inclined to exercise our appellate jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 to interfere with the orders of learned Single Judge as well as the Labour Court. 4. 4. While we notice that the Labour Court was not at all justified in going back to the question of delay in initiating the enquiry proceedings, when once it was held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and if there was no interference under Section 11-A, of the Act and delay in initiating the enquiry proceedings was the sole reason for upsetting the order of dismissal perhaps the order of the Labour Court would not have withstood scrutiny even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge, on examination, found that it does not warrant any interference and dismissed the writ petition. 5. In the examination of the writ appeal before us, we have found that the Corporation had not acted in a consistent or bona fide manner to accept the contentions urged on its behalf by its Counsel that the respondent workman who had a very poor and bleak history sheet with as many as forty-one entries in the record relating to pilferage and such record could have justified an order of dismissal from service, we find that the Corporation in its anxiety to save paying back wages to the workman, during the pendency of the writ petition as the stay order passed by this Court granting stay of the order of the Labour Court for reinstatement was subject to the Corporation complying with the 17-B condition, having reinstated the workman, we find that the workman had been allowed to work in the post not only for six years before starting the enquiry, but for a further period of three years during the enquiry proceedings and though the workman was out of job, once the order of dismissal was passed the Corporation, on its own, having reinstated the workman to avoid payment of 17-B wages which happened during 2006 and again, the workman having worked for more than three years, we find it difficult to accept the version of the Corporation that allowing a chronic mis-conducting conductor will be detriment to the interest of the Corporation and therefore, we dismiss this appeal.