ORDER : 1. The applicant in KID No. 9/2006 on the file of Labour Court, Bijapur has come up in this petition impugning the award dated 28.02.2008 in dismissing his claim under Section 10(4)(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). 2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under: Petitioner herein was working as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation. According to him on 04.09.2005 when he was discharging his duties as Conductor in bus bearing Registration No. KA29/F359 which was plying between Baglkot to Kumatagi, the same was stopped near Benakatti station. According to him, the vigilance staff entered the bus and after conducting physical verification, recorded presence of 18+1 passengers in the bus out of that 8 persons not being issued with ticket of the value of Rs. 3/- each. In that behalf, an enquiry was conducted, thereafter he was dismissed from the service. The same was subject matter of challenge in KID No. 9/2006 on the file of Labour Court, Bijapur, which came to be dismissed by award dated 28.02.2008. The said award of the Labour Court is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is innocent of the offence alleged against him. According to him on that day at about 1½ km prior to Benakatti some ladies stopped the bus and got into the same. When he was in the process of issuing ticket, the Checking staff stopped and entered the bus and thereafter conducted a farce of enquiry and foisted false case against him. It is also stated by him that farce of enquiry was conducted without giving sufficient opportunity to him and thereafter they have dismissed him from service. Being aggrieved of the same, he raised industrial dispute under Section 10(4)(A) of the Act. By looking into the pleadings and defence on behalf of respondent, three issues were framed. The first issue with reference to the legality or otherwise of enquiry being conducted was heard as preliminary issue and decided by order dated 09.10.2007 holding the said issue in the negative against the Corporation and posted the matter for conducting the evidence on behalf of parties. 4. The first issue with reference to the legality or otherwise of enquiry being conducted was heard as preliminary issue and decided by order dated 09.10.2007 holding the said issue in the negative against the Corporation and posted the matter for conducting the evidence on behalf of parties. 4. After recording the evidence independently, the Labour Court has proceeded to dismiss the petition, which is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the evidence is not properly appreciated and that the Labour Court having held that the enquiry proceedings was not held properly having decided the said issue in the negative against the Corporation, has committed grave error in confirming the order of his dismissal from service based on the evidence which is recorded in the proceedings before the Labour Court. 5. It is further contended that the view taken by the Labour Court on other issues is contrary to the finding on issue number one. Therefore, there is grave error on the part of Labour Court in rejecting his prayer for reinstating him into service under the respondent- Corporation with back wages and continuity of service. 6. Heard learned counsel Sri P. Vilas Kumar for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri Subhash Mallapur for respondent-Corporation. Perused the Labour Court records. On going through the same, it is seen that the petitioner entered service of the respondent- Corporation in the year 1977 as Conductor and he has worked in the corporation as such in different routes. On the day when the raid was conducted, he was discharging his duties as conductor in the bus, which was proceeding from Bagalkot to Kamatagi. It is not in dispute that the bus in which he was discharging his duty as Conductor was stopped at Benkatti stop, on the way to Kamatagi and that there were 18+1 passengers in the bus, out of which 8 passengers did not have valid tickets with them. 7. Looking into the entire evidence, it is seen that 8 tickets of Rs.3/each is removed from the tray but the same was not subjected to punching and that were kept with conductor himself without issuing the same. Though, the conductor tried to assert that after passengers entered into the bus just 1½ kms from Benakati stop, he was in the process of issuing the tickets meanwhile the bus was stopped and the checking officials entered into the bus. Though, the conductor tried to assert that after passengers entered into the bus just 1½ kms from Benakati stop, he was in the process of issuing the tickets meanwhile the bus was stopped and the checking officials entered into the bus. The same does not find place in the evidence, which is recorded on behalf of the passengers. 8. The Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence of passengers. One person, who was leader of 8 passengers, had paid the money. Though he demanded the tickets that was removed from tray, it was not punched and issued to the passengers, instead it was kept separately by the conductor himself without issuing the same. This clearly indicates that his intention was to cheat corporation in a sum of Rs.24/in the said trip from Bagalkot to Kamatagi. At this juncture, this Court would pause for a while to look into the previous conduct of the petitioner. It is seen that he was caught on 63 occasions. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the same should not be looked into by this Court, while deciding the correctness or otherwise of the finding of Labour Court. That this Court should not get influenced by material, which are not part of the present proceedings. However, this Court is unable to accept the same. When misconduct in seen in his job, question of giving any concession does not arise. Particularly, the KSRTC is State Corporation, collecting the money on behalf of the corporation and carrying the passengers is the responsibility of the conductor. When he is entrusted with such a responsibility, he is responsible to leave up to that trust of the corporation. This Court would observe that majority of conductor and official of the State run transport corporation are out to kill the institution, which is feeding their livelihood. If they are discharging their duty without the sense of gratitude to the Corporation, it will take toll on the Institution. Therefore, the allegation of misappropriation should be viewed seriously in all cases. Be that as it may. 9. In the instant case as stated supra, he was caught on 63 occasions earlier and was penalized for his wrongdoing. In spite of that, he has continued his dirty habit and stealing money from the Corporation. Therefore, the allegation of misappropriation should be viewed seriously in all cases. Be that as it may. 9. In the instant case as stated supra, he was caught on 63 occasions earlier and was penalized for his wrongdoing. In spite of that, he has continued his dirty habit and stealing money from the Corporation. If a lenient view is taken, it would embolden him and others to think that it is incapacity of the Institution and would indulge themselves again and again in cheating the corporation. Though petitioner was given concession on earlier occasion with mild punishment instead of reforming, he has indulged in yet another case, of pilfering the revenue of corporation. Though the petitioner was warned and shown concession and opportunity to reform, he has failed to improve himself. 10. In over all assessment of the facts and finding of the Court below it is seen that, the Labour Court though initially held that domestic enquiry is not conducted properly, after recording the evidence and after looking into the records pertaining to services of the petitioner has rightly come to the conclusion that petitioner should not be continued in the service with the corporation. According by rightly answering the remaining two issues has ordered for dismissing him from service, which does not call for interference in this proceedings. 11. However, learned counsel for the petitioner in his zeal to discharge his duty to the satisfaction of his dishonest client would try to rely upon the unreported judgment in the matter of the Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Yadgir Division vs. Ramachandra, decided in Writ Appeal No. 10260/2011 (LKSRTC) disposed of on 18.07.2012, in support of the grounds urged in this petition, wherein the challenge before the Division Bench, was with regard to the finding of learned Single Judge in WP No. 83108/2009 in entertaining his claim for subsistence allowances from the date of suspension till the date of award. Therefore, the same was rejected by Division Bench relying upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Management of Mysore Cement Ltd. vs. B.R. Siddaramaiah, 1986 (52) FLR 144. However, the fact situation in the said proceedings and in the case on hand are different. Therefore, the same was rejected by Division Bench relying upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Management of Mysore Cement Ltd. vs. B.R. Siddaramaiah, 1986 (52) FLR 144. However, the fact situation in the said proceedings and in the case on hand are different. Where the learned Single Judge has shown some concession which was under challenge before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein on appreciation of the reasons provided in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appeal which was filed by the Corporation was rejected relying upon the judgment in the case of Mysore Cement Limited. 12. Whereas, in the fact situation of this case, it is totally different. The case of the petitioner is not accepted by the Labour Court. Though it held that domestic enquiry was not conducted properly, after appreciation of material available on record, the Labour Court has rightly rejected his claim for reinstatement without back wages and benefit of service keeping in mind, the dishonest nature of petitioner, who is applicant in the said proceedings inasmuch as deceiving the corporation on several occasions specifically caught on 63 occasions and despite the Corporation and Court being liberal on him to ensure that he would reform, he has taken the lenience shown by the Corporation for granted and has continued to commit the same misconduct. In the said fact situation, the Labour Court taking the overall view of the matter, has rightly rejected his application under Section 104(A) of the Act. 13. Looking into the same, this Court has come to conclusion that question of taking shelter under any technical observation made in any judgment and extending the benefit to the dishonest person is not permissible. When particularly exercising its discretion in writ jurisdiction, the same should be considered seriously inasmuch as the power vested in this Court is not only to exercise it judiciously but to streamline the system. Therefore, in the fact situation, this Court is not inclined to show any kind of concession to the aforesaid petitioner, in taking shelter under the view taken by Division Bench of this Court under different set of facts and by unnecessarily, giving parity to this case with that of the above case and to extend benefits, which otherwise is not available to the petitioner in the fact situation of this case. As already stated supra, the finding of the Court below being just and proper, question of interfering with the same does not arise. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.