JUDGMENT : H.K. Rathod, J. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.S. Supehia for Petitioner workman. Petitioner Riyazkhan Gulamrasulkhan Yusufjay being Conductor, has challenged award passed by Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No. 17/2008 Exhibit 42 where Labour Court has dismissed reference by award Exhibit 42 in September, 2009. Learned advocate Mr. A.S. Supehia appearing for Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner was serving as Conductor in Respondent Corporation. On October 30, 2003, an inspection was carried out by Checking Squad. Charge Memo dated August 7, 2004 was issued to Petitioner wherein Petitioner is inter alia, charged that while he was on duly on the bus, he received fare of Rs. 112.00 from group of eight passengers (Rs. 14.00 per passenger) in advance and they were not issued tickets etc. Departmental inquiry was held against Petitioner. By order dated March 7, 2005, Petitioner was dismissed from service. Said order was confirmed by appellate authority. Said order has been challenged in Reference No. 17/2008 before Labour Court Junagadh which has been rejected by Labour Court. Junagadh in toto. He submitted that passengers are also not examined in departmental and defence which was raised by workman in reply to show cause notice was also not considered by competent authority. Checking squad had recorded that one of the passenger named Kalabhai Maganbhai who was resident of Rangpur was also not issued ticket by Petitioner. On verification done by the Petitioner, it was found that no such person existed in Rangpur village. A certificate dated June 24, 2004 of Sarpanch was also produced by Petitioner in departmental inquiry but same is not properly appreciated by Inquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority. This aspect has also been noted in reply of show cause notice. According to his submission, thus, allegation on the Petitioner is based on fictitious name and Petitioner cannot be held guilty of non issuance of tickets to such person and, hence penalty order is liable to be set aside on this aspect. He also submitted that only one witness was examined in departmental inquiry who was A.A. Vadsaria. This witness has stated that statement of passengers were not recorded by inspector. Reporter has not checked so called excess cash from Petitioner though it was his duty to do so. There is no evidence to show that Petitioner had collected fare from passengers. He also submitted that only one witness was examined in departmental inquiry who was A.A. Vadsaria. This witness has stated that statement of passengers were not recorded by inspector. Reporter has not checked so called excess cash from Petitioner though it was his duty to do so. There is no evidence to show that Petitioner had collected fare from passengers. He had also not tallied way bill of Petitioner and was simply relying upon confession/admission statement said to have been made by Petitioner which had later on been resisted by Petitioner. Before Labour Court, on June 15, 2009, legality and validity of departmental inquiry was not challenged and oral evidence has been closed and, thereafter, matter was heard by labour Court and rejected it and, therefore, he submitted that labour Court has committed gross error in rejecting reference and has also committed gross error in not exercising powers while examining question of proportionality of punishment u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Dispute has been referred to for adjudication on February 21, 2008 and statement of claim was filed by workman at Exhibit 3 having nine years service at Mangrol Depot. Junagadh Division. Reply was filed by ST Corporation at Exhibit 8 and it was pointed out that past record of workman is also bad and first Appeal preferred on March 13, 2005 has been dismissed and on the date of incident October 30, 2003, when conductor was on route from October 30, 2003 in local bus of route from Jetpur to Navghan Chora of Jetpur Center, at that time, upon checking of the bus by checking squad at Umrali, at that time, eight passengers of one group travelling from Jetpur to Rangpur were found without tickets though fare which comes to Rs. 112.00 was collected. It was submitted by ST Corporation in its reply before labour Court that as there was no any substance in reply given to charge sheet, departmental inquiry was held against him in accordance with principles of natural justice and thereafter, personal hearing was fixed on December 27, 2004 and on January 10, 2005, show cause notice was served along with finding but there is no much defence raised in reply and, therefore, dismissal order has been passed by ST Corporation which is legal and valid. Before labour Court, on behalf of corporation, vide Exhibit 9, in all 26 documents were produced and vide Exhibit 10, workman has closed his evidence because vide Exhibit 11, specific purshis was filed by workman to consider his case u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No oral evidence was led by corporation and it was closed by Exhibit 13 and thereafter, written arguments were submitted by corporation at Exhibit 49. In para 7. issues have been framed by Labour Court and discussed it. 2. Before labour Court, contention was raised by advocate for workman that against conductor, no evidence except reporter, who was examined in departmental inquiry and concerned passengers were not examined in departmental inquiry and finding which was given by inquiry officer is baseless and perverse and punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Before labour Court, reliance was placed by advocate for Petitioner upon decision in case of GSRTC v. State Transport Karmachari Union 2002 (2) GLH 695 : 2002 IV LLJ 1325 (NOC) while submitting that the punishment imposed upon workman is harsh, unjust and disproportionate which require interference of labour Court in exercise of powers under 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947. Labour Court has considered written arguments submitted by ST Corporation where it was submitted specifically that the charge of dishonesty and misappropriation is found to be proved against workman, in past 10 defaults were committed though opportunity was given to him to improve but conduct of conductor has not been improved and, therefore, punishment of dismissal has been properly passed by corporation wherein no interference is required. Labour Court has considered purshis Exhibit 11 given by workman for considering his case for reduction of punishment and also not disputed legality and validity of finding given by inquiry officer and therefore, labour Court has rightly come to conclusion that finding given by inquiry officer is not challenged by workman and charges levelled against workman in departmental inquiry is proved against workman Exhibit 16 being statement given by Petitioner to concerned checking squad and in that statement, workman has admitted the charge to the effect that at the time when bus was checked, 23 passengers were found with tickets and eight passengers were found without tickets from whom, fare was recovered by conductor and therefore, unpunched tickets were obtained by checking staff from conductor. Passengers were not examined in departmental inquiry but according to labour Court, it is not necessary to be examined in departmental inquiry, for that, reporter who was examined in departmental inquiry for proving misconduct and also proving statement of passengers which were obtained by checking squad, for that, view has been taken by Apex Court in case of State of Haryana and Another Vs. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491 therefore, labour Court has rightly come to conclusion that it is not necessary to examine passengers in departmental inquiry because hear say evidence can be accepted by inquiry officer from the evidence of reporter. Labour Court has come to conclusion, after considering default case No. 97/2004 and relevant documents which were produced on record that the decision of this Court which has been referred to and relied upon by Petitioner is not helpful to concerned Petitioner. Labour Court has also considered past record as per Exhibit 40 and has considered that looking to status as Badli conductor, number of misconducts in past have been committed which are relating to misappropriation and dishonesty and, therefore, such misconduct cannot be taken lightly and post of conductor is a post of confidence and therefore, no sympathy can be shown to a conductor who has committed such serious misconduct of dishonesty and misappropriation which is found to be proved in departmental inquiry because validity of finding is also not challenged, purshis was filed only to inquire for punishment u/s 11A of the I.D. Act, 1947. 3. I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Supehia. I have also considered decisions which have been relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Supehia. I have also perused award passed by labour Court, Junagadh. According to my opinion, when misconduct relating to dishonesty and misappropriation against conductor is proved, then, punishment of dismissal is considered to be proportionate and not harsh or unjust. That view has been taken by apex Court in number of decisions AIR 2007 SC 2987 ; Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd Vs. Haridas and Another, (2006) 3 SCC 690; North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn. Vs. Ashappa, (2006) 5 SCC 137 . Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H. Amaresh AIR 2006 SC 2730 , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun Vs. Suresh Pal, (2006) 8 SCC 108 and recent decision in case of Divisional Manager, Rajasthan S.R.T.C. Vs. Ltd Vs. Haridas and Another, (2006) 3 SCC 690; North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn. Vs. Ashappa, (2006) 5 SCC 137 . Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H. Amaresh AIR 2006 SC 2730 , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun Vs. Suresh Pal, (2006) 8 SCC 108 and recent decision in case of Divisional Manager, Rajasthan S.R.T.C. Vs. Kamruddin (2009) 7 SCC 552 , In said decision, apex Court considered case of a bus conductor found to be carrying passengers without ticket. Relevant observations made by apex Court in paragraph 9, 10 and 11 are quoted as under at p. 594: 9. It is not a case where the misconduct against the Respondent had not been proved. It is also not a case where the domestic enquiry was found to have been conducted in an unfair manner or contrary to the principles of natural justice. The services of the Respondent had been terminated while the period of probation was not over. As a conductor, his performance during the period of probation was found to be unsatisfactory. It is not in dispute that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him while he was found to have committed similar misconduct for the fifth time. It is also beyond any doubt or dispute that he had also been served with a letter of warning. 10. The power of Labour Court and/or Industrial Tribunal in terms of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to interfere with the quantum of punishment although cannot be denied, but it is also a well settled principle of law that the said power should be exercised judiciously. The Labour Court relied upon the decision of this Court in Bhagyo Mal (supra) wherein the High Court allowed back wages to the workman concerned. This Court in the facts and circumstances of the case found the order of the High Court to be self-contradictory, stating: When the High Court had found that the Respondent-employee deserved punishment on account of his misconduct, the High Court could not have rewarded the employee by granting him the back wages particularly when the Tribunal had converted the order of dismissal into that of the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside that part of the order of the High Court whereby the Respondent-employee has been given the benefit of back wages. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside that part of the order of the High Court whereby the Respondent-employee has been given the benefit of back wages. The rest of the order is maintained. We fail to understand as to how the said decision advanced the case of the Respondent. 11. The question with regard to imposition of appropriate punishment upon a conductor of a bus belonging to a corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 came up for consideration before this Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, (2001) 2 SCC 574 wherein it was held: 5. On the facts as found by the Labour Court and the High Court, it is evident that there was a short-charging of the fare by the Respondent from as many as 35 passengers. We are informed that the Respondent had been in service as a Conductor for nearly 22 years. It is difficult to believe that he did not know what was the correct fare which was to be charged. Furthermore, the Appellant had during the disciplinary proceedings taken into account the fact that the Respondent had been found guilty for as many as 36 times on different dates. Be that as it may, the principle of res ipsa loquitur, namely, the facts speak for themselves, is clearly applicable in the instant case. Charging 50 paise per ticket less from as many as 35 passengers could only be to get financial benefit by the Conductor. This act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the Respondent was not fit to be retained as a Conductor because such action or inaction of his is bound to result in financial loss to the Appellant-Corporation. 6. It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on checking it is found that the Bus Conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the Bus Conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Company. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare. It is the responsibility of the Bus Conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Company. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam v. Sharma, (2002) 1 LLJ 234 SC reiterated the said principle, stating: 4. This Court in Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti has held that in such cases where the bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a less rate than the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors were not fit to be retained in service because such inaction or action on the part of the conductors results in financial loss to the Road Transport Corporation. This Court was firmly of the opinion that in cases like the present, orders of dismissal should not be set aside. 5. Furthermore, we agree with the observations of the single Judge in the present case that the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal. Though u/s 11A the Labour Court has jurisdiction and powers to interfere with the quantum of punishment, however the discretion has to be used judiciously. When the main duty or function of the conductor is to issue tickets and collect fare and then deposit the same with the Road Transport Corporation and when a conductor fails to do so, then it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal. 4. In view of aforesaid observations made by Apex Court and considering reasoning given by labour Court while appreciating facts and evidence on record, according to my opinion, no error has been committed by labour Court which would require interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. In view of aforesaid observations made by Apex Court and considering reasoning given by labour Court while appreciating facts and evidence on record, according to my opinion, no error has been committed by labour Court which would require interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Labour Court has rightly appreciated evidence on record and has rightly considered misconduct which has been found to be proved which is relating to dishonesty and misappropriation and, therefore, discretionary powers u/s 11A of I.D. Act, 1947 has been rightly not exercised by labour Court and for that, labour Court has not committed any error which would require interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (See: State of Haryana v. Manoj Kumar AIR 2010 SCW 1990 : (2010) 3 MLJ 1412 decided on March 9, 2010.) Therefore, there is no substance in this petition and same is required to be dismissed. Same is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.