JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner Corporation', for short), in the instant writ petition, projects a challenge to the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 2nd July, 1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the learned Tribunal') interfering with the order of penalty dated 8th May, 1978 imposing a penalty of two annual grade increments on the respondent/workman (Surendra Singh Rajawat). 2. Shron off the unnecessary details, the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy are : That the petitioner Corporation raised an industrial dispute in the matter of penalty imposed on one Shri Surendra Singh Rajawat (respondent/workman) stopping two annual grade increments vide order dated 8th May, 1978. The respondent/workman was also punished with stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 17th May, 1979. The learned Tribunal taking into consideration the pleaded facts, statement of claim and reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner Corporation as well as the evidence led by the parties, passed the impugned award dated 2nd July, 1997 setting aside the order of penalty dated 8th May, 1978 for stoppage of two annual grade increments. However, the order of penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 17th May, 1979, was upheld. On 12th December, 1977, a charge-sheet was served on the respondent/workman as he was carrying 19 passengers without ticket on 18th November, 1977, while discharging his duty as Conductor on Bus No.2060 of the petitioner Corporation on Vansthali-Jaipur Route. The Inspection Team found the Conductor (respondent/workman) punching the tickets for 13 passengers and 6 passengers were found without ticket, though fare was collected from all the 19 passengers. The charges were substantiated by documentary evidence as well as statement deposed by the witnesses including one Shri S.C. Khandel. On conclusion of the departmental inquiry as per the rules, the respondent/workman was inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments vide order dated 8th May, 1978. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation reiterating the contents of the writ application, submitted that the learned Tribunal fell in gross error of law and facts while interfering with the penalty imposed after conducting the departmental inquiry as per prescribed procedure. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation reiterating the contents of the writ application, submitted that the learned Tribunal fell in gross error of law and facts while interfering with the penalty imposed after conducting the departmental inquiry as per prescribed procedure. The learned counsel referring to the contents of the charge-sheet dated 12th December, 1977, copy of the Bus Checking Report (for short 'the B.C.R.') dated 8th November, 1977 and the statement of Shri S.C. Khandel, further contended that from the note appended by the Inspection Team, it is evident that the respondent/workman (Conductor) was found punching the tickets of 13 passengers during the course of checking and 6 passengers were found without ticket though fare had been collected from all the 19 passengers and this fact was further corroborated and substantiated by the statement of Shri S.C. Khandel. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation then argued that the respondent/workman was obliged to issue the tickets before the Bus started for journey and thus, there was no justification for the respondent/workman for not issuing the tickets, even after having collected the fare from all the 19 passengers, much before the inspection was conducted by the Inspection Team. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/workman supporting the impugned award dated 2nd July, 1997, urged that 13 passengers could not have been treated without ticket by the Inquiry Officer as the respondent/workman was in the process of punching the tickets already issued. Rest of the 6 passengers, who were girl students, insisted for student concession, which was declined by the respondent/workman, which led to a quarrel and it was under those circumstances the Inspection Team arrived, before tickets could be issued to these 6 girl students on the Bus. The learned counsel, therefore, urged that taking into consideration the totality of the facts, circumstances and evidence in defence, the order of penalty dated 8th May, 1978, has been rightly interfered with as the same could not be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, the impugned award calls for no interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent/workman while discharging his duty as Conductor on the Bus of the Corporation, was charged for carrying 19 passengers without ticket. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent/workman while discharging his duty as Conductor on the Bus of the Corporation, was charged for carrying 19 passengers without ticket. From the evidence and materials brought on record, it is evident that 6 passengers were found without ticket. However, the respondent/workman though successfully punched 13 tickets, when the Inspection Team arrived on the vehicle, but neither the tickets were furnished to the passengers nor any entry was made in the way-bill and 6 passengers were found without ticket. One of the members of the Inspection Team, namely, Shri S.C. Khandel, in his statement, has deposed about the physical inspection of the vehicle on 8th November, 1977 and has supported the facts and entries made in B.C.R. prepared on the spot during the process of physical inspection of the vehicle and has corroborated the fact that the respondent/workman had already collected the fare from the passengers but did not issue the tickets to the passengers. The witness has further specifically stated that 13 passengers, whose tickets were punched by the respondent/workman, was an unsuccessful attempt of the respondent/workman, when the Inspection Team arrived for physical inspection of the vehicle. On a consideration of the memo of the charge-sheet, B.C.R. and statement of Shri S.C. Khandel placed on record did substantiate the charges. 7. It need no reiteration that the Management of the petitioner-Corporation is vested with the power of internal administration and discipline. Be that as it may, the power is not unlimited and in the event of a dispute, the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court may interfere in the cases when there is (i) want of good faith, (ii) when there is victimisation or unfair labour practice is adopted, (iii) when the Management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, and (iv) when on the materials, the finding is completely baseless or perverse. By a catena of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by now it is well settled that the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court cannot act as a court of appeal for the reason that what punishment must be inflicted is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the employer except in very rare cases where the punishment or penalty imposed is grossly out of proportion so as to suggest want of good faith, victimization, unfair labour practice, a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice in decision making process or the finding is completely baseless or perverse, in view of the materials available on record. 8. In the instant case at hand, on a careful examination of the records of the Industrial Tribunal, it is apparent that none of the grounds aforesaid exists. The learned Industrial Tribunal has not mentioned any convincing or cogent reason of violation of any of the principles of natural justice. There is no conclusion arrived at by the learned Industrial Tribunal that the action in imposing the penalty interfered with, was imposed on account of want of good faith, victimisation or unfair labour practice. The learned counsel for the respondent/workman also could not substantiate existence of any of the aforesaid grounds. There are no specific reasons recorded by the learned Industrial Tribunal while interfering with the penalty imposed by the employer. The respondent/workman while on duty as a conductor on the bus was charged for non-issuance of journey-tickets, which is a serious misconduct and is an offence punishable under Section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1975. Therefore, the penalty imposed vide order dated 8th May, 1978 after a departmental inquiry could not have been interfered with by the learned Tribunal. 9. For the discussions and reasons detailed out herein above as well as keeping in view the materials available on record, the impugned award dated 2nd July, 1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the writ application is allowed and the impugned award dated 2nd of July, 1997 is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. In view of the final adjudication on the writ application, the stay application stands closed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Application allowed. *******