ORDER : 1. Both the writ petitions are heard together and they are being decided by this common order. 2. The petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9585/2013 had raised a dispute before the learned Labour Court while in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5765/2012, the respondents before the learned Labour Court had challenged the award. 3. Vide award dated 03.11.2011, learned Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur has, after recording the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner workman that he is only challenging the order of removal dated 18.10.1984 on the ground of quantum of punishment and no other aspect, proceeded to deal with the case accordingly. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the workman has preferred this writ petition on the ground that while interfering with the quantum of punishment, the punishment awarded by the learned Judge, Labour Court of stopping three annual grade increments with cumulative effect and granting 50% back wages for the period during which he has not performed his duty, is wholly unjustified and very severe in relation to the delinquency committed of allowing the buses start before distributing tickets to all passengers. 5. On the other hand, the employer – Rajasthan State Road & Transport Corporation has challenged the award dated 03.11.2011 on the ground that the learned Labour Court could not have exercised its power u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and reduce the punishment of removal passed by them to a lesser punishment of stopping three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. 6. Counsel for the petitioner-workman has submitted that the only charge for which the petitioner has been punished, is of plying bus without having given tickets to all the passengers. It is the submission that after the bus had started within one Km., the conductor was issuing the tickets to the passengers and 17 passengers out of total 21 passengers, had already been issued tickets and he was in the process of issuing tickets to the remaining four passengers when the inspection was conducted and the Inspecting Team has only alleged that the tickets had not been issued to the remaining four passengers. Thus, the act cannot be said in any manner to be a misconduct and while examining the quantum of punishment, the learned Judge, Labour Court ought to have taken into consideration the said aspect and set aside the punishment order itself. Thus, the act cannot be said in any manner to be a misconduct and while examining the quantum of punishment, the learned Judge, Labour Court ought to have taken into consideration the said aspect and set aside the punishment order itself. There was no reason to have passed order of punishment of stopping three annual grade increments with cumulative effect which is too harsh. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the RSRTC submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Divisional Manager, Rajasthan S.R.T.C. v/s Kamruddin, AIR 2009 SC 2528 while relying upon the earlier judgment passed in Regional Manager R.S.R.T.C. v/s Ghanshyam Sharma, 2002 (I) LLJ 264 has held that if the conductor is found to be allowing the passenger to travel without ticket, the power u/s 11-A of the Act of 1947 ought not have been exercised and therefore the learned Judge, Labour Court has rightly passed the order of punishment of removal. He further submits that the punishment awarded by the respondents was on account of not following the circular issued by the Standing Order No.36 and Apex Court has held that the power u/s 11-A of the Act ought not have been exercised. 8. I have heard both the counsel and perused the impugned award. 9. While examining the question relating to the quantum of punishment, the learned Judge, Labour Court has taken into consideration the fact that at the time of inspection, there were four passengers to whom tickets had not been issued and the conductor had allowed the bus to ply from the starting point, an amount of Rs.3.60 was collected from the four passengers and handed over to the conductor. The learned Labour Court has also found that the conductor had allowed the bus to start before distributing the tickets to all the passengers which has been admitted by him. However, it has also been noticed that the conductor had not received any money in lieu of tickets from the said passengers and there is no allegation of allowing the passengers to travel in the bus without tickets and embezzling the amount thereof. It has also been noticed that the conductor had earlier filed a civil suit wherein a decree was passed in his favour and he was reinstated. Appeal against such decree was also upheld by the High Court. It has also been noticed that the conductor had earlier filed a civil suit wherein a decree was passed in his favour and he was reinstated. Appeal against such decree was also upheld by the High Court. Whereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the decree on the ground of jurisdiction and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court to decide afresh. During the period of reinstatement, the conductor was not found to have committed any misconduct for a long period of 20-21 years and there was no instance of any other chargesheet issued to him. It was also noticed that there is no standing order to start the bus only after distributing the tickets to all the passengers. Keeping in view all the aforesaid aspects, the learned Judge, Labour Court found that the punishment of removal from service for the said act as noticed above, was too harsh and was shockingly disproportionate to the charge as proved. In these circumstances, the punishment of removal from service was reduced exercising the powers u/s 11-A of the Act to stopping of three annual grade increments with cumulative effective. 10. Section 11-A of the Act, 1947 reads as under : 11A. Powers of Labor Court Tribunal, and National Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labor Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labor Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require: PROVIDED that in any proceeding under this section the Labor Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter.] 11. In the case Ghanshyam Sharma (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the bus conductor had allowed the passengers to travel without tickets and had already collected fare from them and thus it was a case of dishonesty which resulted in the Apex Court holding that the power u/s 11-A, the Labour Court could not have exercised its power and the interference in the quantum of punishment was not justified. 12. In Kamruddin’s case (supra) relying upon in the case of Ghanshyam Sharma (supra), it was again held that the conductor had acted dishonestly in the said case and reached to the conclusion looking to the fact that there had been earlier instances of similar nature, thus the Labour Court in exercise of power u/s 11-A of the Act found to be unjustified. 13. In the present case as noted above, the situation is otherwise. There is no allegation of dishonesty on the part of the workman. It may be that there were orders not to allow the bus to start. However, there is no such allegation that the petitioner in any manner attempted to allow the passengers to travel without tickets or that there was a case of dishonest action on his part. The Labour Court has also noticed that there is no instance of dishonesty or misconduct on the part of the conductor who has already served for more than 20 years of service. After having been reinstated on account of decree having passed in his favour by the concerned civil court, the subsequent removal was only on account of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court setting aside the decree on the ground of jurisdiction. Thus, I find that the learned Labour Court while passing the order, exercised its jurisdiction judiciously and it is not arbitrary or dishonest action on its part. It is settled law that each case as to be examined on the facts which are on record. 14. Accordingly, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the judicious discretion exercised by the learned Judge, Labour Court who admittedly has the power to interfere with the order of dismissal or removal from service in terms of section 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947. 15. 14. Accordingly, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the judicious discretion exercised by the learned Judge, Labour Court who admittedly has the power to interfere with the order of dismissal or removal from service in terms of section 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947. 15. The submission of the learned counsel for the workman that the punishment awarded by the learned Judge, Labour Court should be further interfered, is also not made out for interference as this court would not substitute its opinion with the learned Labour Court with regard to punishment awarded as the power u/s 11-A of the Act of 1947 is only limited to that of the Labour Court and not extended under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to this court. 16. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are found to be without merit and the same are dismissed.