ORDER : The first party-workman in Reference No. 55/2014 has come up in this petition impugning the order dated 29.06.2016 in rejecting his claim under Section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under : The petitioner herein was appointed as Conductor-cum-Driver in Lingasugur Division of NEKRTC in the year 1998. It is stated that, on 07.12.2009, when he was working in Lingasugur Unit of Raichur Division, he was discharging duty as Conductor of bus bearing registration No. F7112 between Ilkal and Lingasugur. In the afternoon, on that day between 1.05 p.m., and 1.20 p.m., when the said bus was stopped by the inspecting team headed by P.K. Jadhav, Assistant Traffic Superintendent and also R.L. Jadhav, Assistant Traffic Inspector, they conducted raid near Rampur cross at Stage No.6/S. At that time, it was noticed that there were 15 passengers who were travelling without paying fare at the rate of Rs.5/- per person. 3. The inspecting team collected Rs.750/- from the passengers and at the same time, took the ATM machine from the petitioner and also unused tickets which were in the said ATM machine. After recording the statement of the passengers, by issuing offence memo to the petitioner in No.07433 and also making necessary entries in the trip sheet bearing No. 3412338, the matter was referred to Divisional Controller of NEKRTC for taking suitable action. 4. In this background, it is stated that the charge sheet is issued to him and thereafter, enquiry was conducted wherein it was proved that he carried 15 passengers without issuing valid tickets to them, after the said persons boarded the bus. Thereafter, enquiry report is placed before the Disciplinary Authority who took a decision to impose penalty of dismissal of service. The petitioner being aggrieved of the same, challenged the said order by filing a claim petition under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. 5. In the said proceeding, preliminary issue which was framed with reference to whether the enquiry conducted was fair and proper was answered in the negative against the respondent and thereafter, they were permitted to lead evidence. In the proceedings before the Reference Court, evidence was recorded on behalf of the respondent NEKRTC and also relevant documents were marked. 5. In the said proceeding, preliminary issue which was framed with reference to whether the enquiry conducted was fair and proper was answered in the negative against the respondent and thereafter, they were permitted to lead evidence. In the proceedings before the Reference Court, evidence was recorded on behalf of the respondent NEKRTC and also relevant documents were marked. On appreciation of the same as against the evidence adduced by the petitioner herein, the Reference Court proceeded to dismiss the claim petition filed by the petitioner herein and held him guilty of the offence of allowing 15 passengers to travel in the said bus without issuing tickets for the said stage. The first party claimant in Reference No. 55/2014 being aggrieved by the order of rejection of his claim petition has come up in this writ petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent NEKRTC would bring to the notice of this Court that there were in all sixty incidents against the petitioner which are in the combination of collection of fare, non-issuing of tickets; non-collection of fare and non-issuing of tickets; and absenteeism are attributed to the petitioner on more than sixty occasions and that he is stated to be an habitual offender. In that view of the matter, the Court below has not taken lenient view while considering his prayer for reinstatement with back-wages in the claim petition which is filed by him before the Labour Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent. Perused the material available on record. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that though the petitioner herein who is in service of respondent Corporation from 1998 as Conductor-Cum-Driver has committed various offences on nearly 60 occasions earlier and most of the time even when he was held to be guilty, he is let off taking lenient view. This has emboldened him in committing further offence instead of humiliating him to be obedient, honest and sincere to his job. In that view of the mater, this Court feel that any further concession would be an unnecessary lenience shown to him more particularly, when the evidence available on record is seen, it would indicate about the honesty of the person in projecting himself as obedient employee of the institution is highly doubtful. 8. In that view of the mater, this Court feel that any further concession would be an unnecessary lenience shown to him more particularly, when the evidence available on record is seen, it would indicate about the honesty of the person in projecting himself as obedient employee of the institution is highly doubtful. 8. In the instant case, when he was caught red handed carrying 15 passengers in the bus without issuing tickets, at the first instance, he took a defence that passengers got into the bus in between two stages and when he was about to issue tickets, the inspecting squad also boarded the bus at the same time and prevented him from issuing tickets and consequently, taking away the ATM machine and other materials available with him and he was unnecessarily charged for an offence which is not committed. However, at the time of recording of evidence, he used a different picture altogether contending that though the passengers boarded the bus, he had not issued the tickets and when he was about to issue tickets, the ticket checking authority boarded the bus, took away ATM machine preventing him from issuing tickets. That itself clearly indicate that this man is not honest in his own pleadings and evidence. He is trying to project himself as innocent man when the records would speak otherwise of his conduct. 9. Besides this, the records also indicate that the petitioner having involved in more than sixty offences in a span of 11 years from 1998 to 2009. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority in imposing highest penalty of dismissing him from service appears to be just and proper, further finding of the Labour Court in Reference No. 55/2014 in rejecting his claim under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 also appears to be just and proper. Therefore, question of interfering with the same does not arise. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.