Judgment :- 1. This petition by employer State Transport Corporation takes exception to orders passed by learned Judge, Labour Court, Akola and learned Member, Industrial Court, Amravati, whereby they set aside respondent No1’s dismissal by the petitioner and ordered his reinstatement in service. 2. The facts, which are material for deciding this petition, are as under: The respondent was serving as a conductor with the petitioner Corporation on a bus going from Amravati to Indore on 27th July, 1992. Officers of the petitioner Corporation checked the bus at Indore Phata at about 18.40 hrs and found two passengers going from Shahapur to Khandwa who had paid fare but were not issued tickets. Two passengers who had paid fare and were travelling from Brahanpur to Khandwa were without tickets. Seven passengers and a child travelling from Ashirgad to Khandwa from whom fare had been recovered were also without tickets. The cash found with the respondent was excess by Rs.4.50. It was also found that there were 14 tickets of different denominations already sold in the respondent’s bag. After a report was made, the respondent was chargesheeted on 3rd August, 1992 and after completion of inquiry a second show cause notice was served upon the respondent on 24th November, 1992. After considering the reply of the respondent, received on 4th December, 1992, on 5th December, 1992 the respondent was dismissed from service. 3. The respondent challenged this dismissal by filing complaint before the learned Judge, Labour Court, Akola, who held that the enquiry was proper, but that the findings recorded by the competent authority were partly perverse and therefore, set aside the dismissal of the respondent workman, and directed that the workman be reinstated in service with continuity, but without back wages. The petitioner Corporation challenged this order by preferring revision before the Industrial Court at Amravati, which partly allowed the revision, imposing punishment of withholding two increments on the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the Corporation is before this Court. 4. I have heard Advocate Shri Mehadia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Advocate Shri Jagdale, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The petitioner Corporation challenged this order by preferring revision before the Industrial Court at Amravati, which partly allowed the revision, imposing punishment of withholding two increments on the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the Corporation is before this Court. 4. I have heard Advocate Shri Mehadia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Advocate Shri Jagdale, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after having held that the enquiry was proper it was not open to the learned Judge of the Labour Court to hold that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse, particularly because the learned Judge held that the charges, pertaining to misconduct in clauses 7a, 7d and 7c, as proved. He submitted that the misconduct under Clause 7a is failure to issue tickets without justifiable cause and thereby permitting without ticket travel. Clause 7c is, not issuing tickets after collecting/ recovering fare from the passengers, and Clause 7d is failure to issue tickets to the passengers within prescribed time. The learned counsel submits that if it is held as proved that the respondent had collected fare from the passengers but had not issued tickets within the prescribed time, it would amount to dishonesty, cheating or misappropriation and attract Clause 12b as well. There could be no other intention than misappropriation in not issuing tickets after collecting fare. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there were contradictions in the evidence tendered at the enquiry which have been referred to by the learned Judge, Labour Court. He submitted that failure to issue tickets after collecting fares within the prescribed time may be on account of several reasons and need not necessarily lead to misappropriation. According to him, since the learned Judge, Labour Court found that the reasons given by the Enquiry Officer were not adequate, there is no perversity in the findings that the misconduct under Clause 12b was not proved. For this purpose he placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in Anilkumar Vs. Presiding Officer, reported at AIR 1985 SC 1121 , where the Court held that the minimum expectation is that the report of the Enquiry Officer must be reasoned one and that the Court may not enter into adequacy or sufficiency of the evidence. For this purpose he placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in Anilkumar Vs. Presiding Officer, reported at AIR 1985 SC 1121 , where the Court held that the minimum expectation is that the report of the Enquiry Officer must be reasoned one and that the Court may not enter into adequacy or sufficiency of the evidence. It is not clear as to how after having concluded that misconduct in not issuing tickets after collecting fare was held as proved, and reasons given by the Enquiry Officer for this were proper, by applying judgment in Anilkumar, it can be held that the reasons given by the Enquiry Officer were not adequate for holding the misconduct as defined in Clause 12b as proved. 7. The leaned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in Ramkrushna Vs. M.S.R.T.C., reported at 1996(2) Mh.L.J. 1025 and Gajanan Shamrao Thakre Vs. M.S.R.T.C., reported at 2000 III CLR 99. In Ramkrushna Raut’s case the bus was overcrowded with 82 passengers on the day of “Rasta Roko Andolan” (Road Blockage Agitation”). In this context the Court held that taking into account all the circumstances, it was not possible to subscribe to the view that the petitioner had disregarded his duty, in order to attract misconduct under Clause 7 so as to entail dismissal of the petitioner-conductor therein from service. These observations cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In Gajanan Thakre’s case the question was of reappreciating the whole evidence by the Industrial Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In that case while the employee had examined himself before the Labour Court, no witness was examined on behalf of the Corporation. The Labour Court had held that the enquiry was vitiated, having been conducted any contravention of the principles of natural justice. The observations came in that context. Therefore, it is not clear as to how this judgment would help the respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that apart from failure to issue tickets after collecting fares from the passengers the respondent was also found to be in possession of fourteen tickets which were already once sold. This has been specifically mentioned in the charge. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that apart from failure to issue tickets after collecting fares from the passengers the respondent was also found to be in possession of fourteen tickets which were already once sold. This has been specifically mentioned in the charge. No explanation was given by the respondent either before the checking staff or in course of the enquiry as to how he was in possession of the tickets which had already been used. In the complaint before the Labour Court, in paragraph 3 the respondent had specifically stated that some used up tickets were found in the cash box of the complainant, but that it was not at all alleged that the complainant had used any tickets which were issued in the past. A conductor would not be interested in collecting used tickets as they are not items worth collecting and in any case for a child they may have at least some value as a play thing, but not for a conductor of a bus. Had the tickets been used by him, i.e. reissued to the passengers, they would not have been in his cash box. Therefore, the fact that there were some tickets in his cash box would be indicative of the possibility that they were so collected by him in order to be misused. 9. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, in paragraph 13 of his judgment, has referred to these tickets and has observed that those tickets were from the tray of the complainant plying from Nagpur to Indore and that those tickets may be sold only in the State of Maharashtra and not in Madhya Pradesh where the bus was checked. It does not, however, rule out the possibility that the tickets were collected or kept by the conductor for being used at an opportune moment, since no passenger, who gets a ticket, would check it up with the ticket tray of the conductor to find out whether the tickets being issued, are from the series in the ticket tray or not. Therefore, rather than the findings of the Enquiry Officer being perverse, the findings of the Judge, Labour Court appear to be off the mark. The learned Judge seems to have been content at denying the claim of back wages in face of a breach of trust by the respondent-workman. 10. Therefore, rather than the findings of the Enquiry Officer being perverse, the findings of the Judge, Labour Court appear to be off the mark. The learned Judge seems to have been content at denying the claim of back wages in face of a breach of trust by the respondent-workman. 10. It was observed that some amount was allegedly retained by the respondent workman for being paid as road tax, it may be useful to reproduce a sentence in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Labour Court: “However, the competent authority has not considered the amount of pathkar which was remained to be paid by the complainant.” First, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there would be no occasion for the conductor of the bus to pay road tax to the Regional Transport Authorities. Pathkar is Toll Tax, which would have been collected at the Toll Booth itself and could not remain to be paid with the conductor. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Judge, Labour Court should have seen falsity of such explanations and should have concluded that, in fact, the conduct of the respondent showed that he had taken money from passengers and had not issued tickets and therefore, the cash did not tally with the account of tickets sold. He submitted that it was unfortunate that the learned Judge of the revisional Court also failed to take into account all this, possibly because the learned Judge observed that there is very limited scope in the revision. All the same, the learned Judge should have seen that the conclusions drawn by the learned Judge, Labour Court, were thoroughly unwarranted and therefore, he ought to have exercised his revisional jurisdiction, not merely by adding punishment of withholding two increments permanently, but by upholding dismissal of the complaint. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that time and again the Apex Court had held that such workman do not observe to be continued. In Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Sohan Lal, reported at (2004) 8 SCC 218 the Supreme Court held that the offer of workman to forgo entire back wages, if he was reinstated, is not an offer which can be taken into consideration since the Corporation had lost confidence in the workman. In U.P. SRTC Vs. Vinod Kumar, reported at (2008) 1 SCC 115 quoting from Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. In U.P. SRTC Vs. Vinod Kumar, reported at (2008) 1 SCC 115 quoting from Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H. Amaresh, (2006) 6 SCC 187 the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court as well as Labour Court and restored the punishment of dismissal of the respondent from service. In N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H. Amaresh, reported at (2006) 6 SCC 187 the conductor was found in a drunken condition with Rs.360.95 short in cash box. He was dismissed after an enquiry. The Labour Court held the charge of pilferage proved, but ordered reinstatement with 75% back wages. The High Court reduced the back wages to 25%. The Supreme Court held that when an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation’s funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial fora in interfering with the quantum of punishment. The learned counsel also relied on a judgment of Regional Manager, RSRTC Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma, reported at (2002) 10 SCC 330 where similar view was taken. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was absolutely no warrant for the learned Judge, Labour Court to interfere with the punishment. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from the misconduct even the past record of the respondent had been considered and it was also not complimentary. Interference in the punishment would have been warranted only if it was shockingly disproportionate. Considering the view expressed by the Apex Court in number of judgments cited above, it has to be held that when a conductor of the bus is found to have failed to issue tickets for a quite some time after receiving money, and was found in possession of used tickets without any plausible explanation, he was not entitled to continue in service and therefore, the orders passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court and the learned Member, Industrial Court were untenable. 13. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the complaint of the respondent before the Labour Court is dismissed. 14. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.