Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—This petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 24th January 2005 passed by Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 85 of 2002 whereby the reference is partly allowed and set aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioner to reinstatement the respondent with continuity of service and 60% back wages. 2. The respondent was serving as driver with the petitioner Corporation. The service record of the respondent was not good and he had committed 24 defaults in his career. Though the respondent was called upon to resume his duty he refused to do so. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him and ultimately his services came to be terminated. The respondent filed departmental appeal and thereafter he accepted the dismissal order and informed that he is not interested in service and his appeal may be rejected. Accordingly the appeal was rejected. In pursuance of this the dues of the respondent was paid which he accepted. After receiving the amount the respondent raised dispute which was referred to the Labour Court and the Labour Court passed the aforesaid judgement and award against which the present petition has been filed. 3. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the relevant documents on record. As a result of this exercise, I am of the view that as held by the Labour Court the misconduct alleged against the respondent did not warrant dismissal from service and therefore the Labour Court has rightly set aside the order of the dismissal. 4. However, the Labour Court has overlooked the fact that there are as many as 24 defaults against the respondent. Because of non-resumption of duty the Corporation had to incur financial loss by paying overtime payment. The Labour Court has not thought it fit to impose any penalty upon the respondent in spite of the aforesaid facts. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that interests of justice would be met by imposing a penalty of stoppage of four increments with future effect. 5. Further, there was no plea nor evidence or proof to show that from the alleged discontinuation of his service till the date of the award, the respondent was not in gainful employment. 5. Further, there was no plea nor evidence or proof to show that from the alleged discontinuation of his service till the date of the award, the respondent was not in gainful employment. Therefore looking to the fact that the respondent was dismissed from service, I am of the view that there was no justification for grant of back wages, especially when he has not worked on the post during the interregnum period. 6. In the premises aforesaid the judgement and award of the Labour Court is quashed and set aside qua back wages. A penalty of stoppage of four increments with future effect shall be imposed upon the respondent. The respondent shall be entitled to continuity of service as if he continued in service. The judgement and award of the Labour Court is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. The amount already paid to the respondent shall be given set of while calculating the benefit to the respondent. The present orders shall be implemented within a period of six months from today.