JUDGMENT : Hemant M. Prachchhak, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.268 of 2003, the appellant – corporation has preferred the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:- 2.1 The respondent – workman was appointed as a conductor with Anjar Depot of Bhuj Division of the appellant – Corporation. He was on duty as conductor on corporation's bus which was on route from Dudhai to Kotda. The checking squad embarked the bus and conducted the checking. The checking squad recorded statements of passengers and subsequently, reported the said incident to the competent authority. After considering the report of the checking squad and supporting material, the appellant - Corporation decided to conduct domestic proceedings against the respondent for the alleged misconduct. Therefore, a chargesheet dated 11.11.1992 along with a statement of allegations was served upon the respondent and after considering explanation/reply, departmental inquiry came to be initiated. According to the appellant, sufficient opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondent and he also examined witness to support and justify his statement of defence. Upon conclusion of the proceedings of the domestic inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report. The inquiry officer held that the charge/allegations against the workman are proved. Thereafter, second show cause notice was served upon the respondent and along with the notice, report of the inquiry officer was also provided. The respondent filed his reply to the show cause notice dated 4.11.1993. The disciplinary authority considered the report of the inquiry officer and the material available on record of the inquiry as well as the respondent's reply/explanation. The disciplinary authority agreed with the conclusion of the inquiry officer and found that the charge/allegations are proved which deserved and justified penalty of dismissal from service. Therefore, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 17.11.1993. 2.2 Feeling aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the respondent filed appeal before the appellate authority which came to be dismissed by the appellate authority. Against the said orders, the respondent raised industrial dispute as aforesaid came to be referred by appropriate government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Bhuj-Kutch and was registered as Reference (LCB) No.654 of 1996 (new number). Against the said orders, the respondent raised industrial dispute as aforesaid came to be referred by appropriate government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Bhuj-Kutch and was registered as Reference (LCB) No.654 of 1996 (new number). During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the respondent filed his statement of claim and alleged that his service was terminated illegally. He challenged the findings of the inquiry officer as incorrect and also claimed that he had not committed any misconduct and the findings by the inquiry officer are perverse and the authorities have acted arbitrarily in terminating his service. With such allegations, the respondent prayed for reinstatement with consequential benefits. 2.3 The reference was opposed by present appellant by filing written statement wherein it mentioned the details about the checking of the bus when the respondent was on duty and the report of the checking squad and the details relating to the inquiry as well as inquiry officer's report and the disciplinary authority's order and rejection of the appeal. 2.4 During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the respondent filed pursis declaring that the legality and propriety of the departmental inquiry is not challenged and it is admitted. The respondent, however, challenged the findings of the inquiry officer as incorrect, erroneous and unjustified. 2.5 It appears that though the respondent did not challenge the legality of the inquiry, the learned Labour Court, without recording conclusion that the findings are perverse, recorded evidence and after concluding the stage of evidence and hearing of arguments by contesting parties, passed the award. 2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 22.05.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Kachchch-Bhuj in Reference (LCB) No.654 of 1996, the appellant - petitioner approached this Court by filing the aforesaid petition seeking the following prayers. A. This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22nd May 2002 passed by the Labour Court, Kutch Bhuj in Reference (LCB) No.654 of 1996 at Annexure-A to this petition. B. Pending final hearing and disposal of the petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the execution and operation of order dated 22nd May 2002 passed by the Labour Court, Kutch-Bhuj in Reference (LCB) No.654 of 1996 at Annexure-A to this petition. C. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass such other order as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case. D. The cost of this petition be provided. 2.7 The learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.06.2016 has allowed petition and directed the appellant – corporation to reinstate/appoint the respondent in service, however such reinstatement/appointment would be without continuity of service i.e. as a fresh employee. It is further directed the corporation to comply with the order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks from receipt of certified copy of the order. 3. The said judgment and order is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Heard Mr.H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – corporation and Mr.Mukesh Rathod, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – workman. 5. Mr.H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – corporation has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal. 5.1 The written submissions made by Mr.Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – corporation reads as under. (a) The respondent no.1 joined the service as conductor in the year 1987. (b) When the bus was checked on 04.11.1992, it was found that respondent no.1 was involved in case of financial irregularities. As per the report there were nine irregularities. The respondent no.1 issued a charge-sheet on 11.11.1992 regarding misconduct of financial irregularities relating to tickets and collection of fare in as many as eight cases. The respondent no.1 did not file reply to the charge-sheet. On the basis of the record, the charges were proved in a departmental inquiry. The only defence before the inquiry officer was of ill-health. (c) After issuing show-cause notice on 27.10.1993 and considering the reply of the respondent dated 04.11.1993, the corporation passed dismissal order on 17.11.1993. (d) The Labour Court allowed the reference by ordering reinstatement with continuity but without back wages on 22.05.2002 and the Labour Court though observed that the departmental inquiry is just and legal erred in interfering with the dismissal order by exercising powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (d) The Labour Court allowed the reference by ordering reinstatement with continuity but without back wages on 22.05.2002 and the Labour Court though observed that the departmental inquiry is just and legal erred in interfering with the dismissal order by exercising powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has erred in holding that the penalty was harsh though there were eight irregularities relating to issuance of used tickets, non-issuance of tickets and collection of fare. It ought to have been appreciated that the only defence with respondent no.1 was ill-health. The Labour Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the past record of respondent no.1 was not satisfactory. It ought to have been appreciated that ill-health would not have resulted into eight irregularities in the same journey. (e) The GSRTC approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.68 of 2003. Learned Single Judge has erred in ordering reinstatement without continuity and back wages in a case wherein departmental inquiry is found just and legal. Learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that considering as many as eight defaults in the year 1992 alone wherein minor penalties were imposed in identical cases and opportunities were given to improve but there was no change in approach of respondent no.1. (f) As respondent no.1 was habitual offender there was no question of affording one more opportunity by way of ordering fresh appointment. The employer has lost trust and confidence in respondent no.1. Merely 30 years have now passed by dismissal order dated 17.11.1993. (g) The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court in catena of decisions have held that the exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is unwarranted and penalty of dismissal by the competent authority of the employer should not be interfered with in a casual manner. 5.2 Mr.Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – corporation has relied upon the following decisions. 1. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Abdulkadar Daudbhai Ghenghen, 2005 (4) GLR 3062 ; 2. Regional Manager, U. P. SRTC, Etawah and others, (2003) 3 SCC 605 ; 3. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Khumansinh Ramsinh Mahida, 2005 (3) GLH 127 ; 4. Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A. T. Mane, (2005) 3 SCC 254 ; 6. 1. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Abdulkadar Daudbhai Ghenghen, 2005 (4) GLR 3062 ; 2. Regional Manager, U. P. SRTC, Etawah and others, (2003) 3 SCC 605 ; 3. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Khumansinh Ramsinh Mahida, 2005 (3) GLH 127 ; 4. Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A. T. Mane, (2005) 3 SCC 254 ; 6. Mr.Rathod, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – workman has opposed the Letters Patent Appeal and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6.1 The written submissions made by Mr.Rathod, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – workman reads as under. (a) The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the GSRTC against the judgment and order dated 14.06.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application No.268 of 2003. (b) It is stated that the workman concerned was working as conductor with the appellant corporation and when the workman was on duty on 04.11.1992, on the route of Dudhai to Kotda, the checking squad embarked the bus and conducted the checking, during which, the following irregularities amounting to misconduct were noticed by the checking squad:- (i) The table of the fare was in a dilapidated condition. (ii) The respondent did not issue tickets to two lady passengers travelling from Dudhai to Kotada inspite of collecting fare of Rs.2/- from them and thereby pocketed the said amount. On seeing the checking squad, the respondent tried to issue tickets but could not punch them properly. (iii) One passenger traveling from Dudhai to Kotada was issued used ticket after collecting fare of Rs.1/- and the unpunched ticket was taken in possession and thereby pocketed the said amount. (iv) Two passengers travelling from Dudhai to Navagam were issued used tickets after collecting fare of Rs.2/- and the unpunched tickets were taken in possession and thereby pocketed the said amount. (v) Two passengers and minor travelling from Dudhai to Navagam were issued two and half used tickets after collecting fare of Rs.3/- and the unpunched tickets were taken in possession and thereby pocketed the said amount. The unpunched ticket was taken in the possession. (vi) The respondent did not issue tickets to one passenger travelling from Dudhai to Navagam inspite of collecting fare of respondent no.1 from the passenger and thereby pocketed the said amount. The unpunched ticket was taken in the possession. (vi) The respondent did not issue tickets to one passenger travelling from Dudhai to Navagam inspite of collecting fare of respondent no.1 from the passenger and thereby pocketed the said amount. The unpunched ticket was taken in the possession. (vii) The respondent did not issue ticket to one passenger travelling from Dudhai to Kotada inspite of collecting fare from the passenger and thereby pocketed the said amount. The unpunched ticket was taken in the possession. (viii) The respondent did not show the particulars regarding the sold tickets in the way-bill. (ix) Inspite of the fact that as per the fare table, the fare of one ticket from Dudhai to Navagam and Dudhai to Kotada is Rs.1.25, the respondent collected fare of only Rs.1/- and, therefore, the balance amount of Rs.1.50 was ordered to be recovered from the respondent. (c) On the basis of aforesaid allegation, the corporation initiated departmental proceeding and after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the corporation has dismissed the service of the workman by order dated 17.11.1993. (d) Therefore, the workman has approached the Labour Court, Bhuj-Kachchh by filing Reference (LCB) No.654 of 1996. It is stated that after considering both the parties, the Labour Court has passed an award on 22.05.2002 and the reference of the workman was partly allowed and quashed and set aside the order of dismissal and directed to the corporation to reinstate the workman with continuity of service without back wages within a period of 30 days from the date of publication. (e) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied from the award passed by the Labour Court, the corporation has preferred Special Civil Application No.268 of 2003, wherein this Hon’ble Court has issued directions. The relevant directions are quoted as under:- (i) The impugned award is set aside and modified. (ii) The order directing reinstatement of the workman is not disturbed, however, the order directing continuity of service is set aside. The decision of learned Labour Court of denying backwages is also confirmed. (iii) The petitioner will reinstate/appoint the respondent in service of the corporation, however, such reinstatement / appointment would be without continuity of service i.e. it shall be as a fresh employee. (iv) It would also be open and permissible for the petitioner corporation to reinstate/appoint the respondent on any other post, however, equivalent to the post of conductor. (iii) The petitioner will reinstate/appoint the respondent in service of the corporation, however, such reinstatement / appointment would be without continuity of service i.e. it shall be as a fresh employee. (iv) It would also be open and permissible for the petitioner corporation to reinstate/appoint the respondent on any other post, however, equivalent to the post of conductor. (v) Necessary action for compliance of the modified award may be taken by the petitioner corporation as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order. (f) It is stated that the learned Single Judge has denied the benefits of continuity of service, on the contrary, the directions issued to the appellant corporation to reinstate the workman as fresh at any equivalent post of conductor. (g) It is stated that there is no error in the award and the learned Labour Court is rightly justified in holding that the charge / allegations against the workman are not proved. The corporation did not examine any witness and did not establish any charge or allegation and the inquiry officer had committed error in holding that the charge/allegations against the workman are proved. It is submitted that the conclusion and findings recorded by the inquiry officer are contrary to evidence and unjustified. It is submitted that there is no substance or truth in the allegation that the respondent had re-issued the punched tickets and/or not issued tickets even after collecting fare. It is submitted that the allegations are incorrect and have not been proved and therefore the disciplinary authority should not have passed the order dismissing the workman from service. The order of disciplinary authority is unjustified, arbitrary and without any basis or justification. (h) The learned Labour Court has categorically recorded the findings on the basis of materials on record and come to the conclusion that reported has admitted in his cross examination that the reissued tickets was belongs to the workman bus and was also mentioned in way bill and also further admitted that tickets were issued to 41 + 2 passengers, at the time of checking total 53 passengers were boarded on the bus. During the departmental proceedings, the workman has examined the passengers who had admitted that they have not given fare to the conductor and not took tickets and the conductor was not feeling well and even not able to stand properly and further admitted that she had made only thumb impression on statements as the checking staff told to her. Considering all these materials on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the workman is not proved and, therefore, reinstatement with continuity of service was awarded by the Labour Court. (i) The Labour Court has considered all the aspects which were on record and come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the workman was not proved. The workman has not committed breach of any resolutions or instructions of the corporation. (j) It is stated that the corporation has failed to produce the past record of the workman before the Labour Court and, therefore, the Labour Court has exercised the powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and passed an award in favour of the workman. (k) As per the instruction of the respondent, the date of birth of workman is 01.05.1966 and considering that he will be retired from service w.e.f 31.05.2020. It is stated that now from onward, only two years service left for the workman and considering it, to offer any equivalent post to the workman other than conductor, the workman is ready to accept the same and resume his duties as corporation decides. In view of the aforesaid reasons and justifications, the appeal is required to be dismissed. 6.2 Regarding various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Rathod, learned counsel for respondent – workman has submitted that those decisions are not applicable to the factual aspects of this appeal. 7. We have perused the materials placed on record and considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the sides and the decisions cited at the bar. 7. We have perused the materials placed on record and considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the sides and the decisions cited at the bar. From the facts of the present case, it appears that the misplaced sympathy has been shown by the Labour Court as when on checking, it is found that the bus conductor i.e. respondent has neither issued the tickets to the passengers nor he could have issued tickets for small denomination and collected fare knowing fully well that the fare which he had collected is higher than the tickets issued. It is responsibility of the respondent to collect the exact fare for the tickets issued or against collection of the fare, he has to issue such a ticket to the passengers and deposit such amount with the appellant – corporation. It appears that the act is in fiduciary and it is the case of complete misconduct and misappropriation of the amount. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, it appears that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in exercise of powers under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It reveals from the materials that though the charge of misappropriation i.e. in not issuing the tickets to the passengers, despite of the fact that the respondent has collected the fare from the passengers, was proved and the said fact was admitted by respondent, the Labour Court has shown undue and misplaced sympathy in favour of the respondent by quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal as respondent – workman was found in violation and breach of Section 7(a), 11, 12(b), 22, 27 and 33 of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules of the Corporation, which is serious in nature. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court directing the appellant – corporation to reinstate the workman giving additional chance to indulge into such type of misconduct is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The decisions referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – corporation would be applicable to the facts of the present case and squarely covered the issue involved in the present appeal. 8. The decisions referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – corporation would be applicable to the facts of the present case and squarely covered the issue involved in the present appeal. 8. The Courts would not interfere unless the exercise of discretion in awarding punishment is perverse in the sense the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate. The Courts can interfere in quantum of punishment. The quantum of punishment is within the discretionary domain and the sole power of the decision of making authority once the charge of misconduct stands proved then exercising the power of judicial review, the court do not assume the role of the appellate authority. Writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural error leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is difficult to sustain as it equates appellate power under the Rules framed by the corporation, with power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts. The Rules of the corporation, empowers the appellate authority to examine whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate and pass consequential order confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the punishment imposed upon the workman. Since the respondent is a conductor of the corporation and the corporation is having confidence on the workmen since they are earning members of the corporation and, therefore, considering the charge levelled against the workman, it is required to be serious viewed and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside and the order of imposition of punishment is required to be confirmed. 9. It would be appropriate to refer to the following decisions which would squarely apply to the case on hand. 9.1 In the case of Abdulkadar Daudbhai Ghenghen (supra), this Court has observed in paras-6 and 7 as under:- 6. 9. It would be appropriate to refer to the following decisions which would squarely apply to the case on hand. 9.1 In the case of Abdulkadar Daudbhai Ghenghen (supra), this Court has observed in paras-6 and 7 as under:- 6. Thus, the gist of all the aforesaid judgments is that when a workman in a State Road Transport Corporation, who is a conductor, who is holding a post of trust and confidence; integrity and honesty are a part of his functioning and who is the main earning member for the petitioner-Corporation is committing misconduct of misappropriation, even of a smaller amount, ought not to have been viewed leniently and misplaced sympathy if shown by the Labour Court by awarding reinstatement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that such type of misplaced sympathy is uncalled for and unwarranted and further held that punishment of dismissal is just proper and cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate. For the petitioner-Corporation, a driver is the most important person who is driving State transport bus for the welfare of the public at large and conductor is the main earning member for the petitioner-Corporation. Services to the public can be effectively provided by the petitioner mainly with the help of amounts collected by conductors. Salaries can be regularly paid by the petitioner to their employees provided conductors are collecting the amount and if honestly conductors are collecting fares from passengers, to that extent, State Transport Corporation may not have to depend upon Public Exchequer of State of Gujarat. Driver and Conductor are two most important posts of trust. Rest of the post holders are aiding and assisting the aforesaid two posts for the better management and control of their functions. Conductors act in a fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held that when conductors are committing misconduct of misappropriating of the amount, punishment of dismissal is not unreasonable, excessive or disproportionate, much less, shockingly disproportionate and whenever Labour Courts have upset and interfered with the said punishment awarded by the Corporations like petitioner in past, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not approved such type of exercise of powers at the behest of the Labour Courts in exercise of their power under Sec. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. 7. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and nature of misconduct on the part of the respondent-workman, I am of the opinion that there was no need for the Labour Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by the petitioner to the respondent-workman. In past also, within a period of seven years, there are as many as 16 misconducts and one of them had even to his dismissal in past. However, it appears that there is no improvement in the habit of the respondent-workman. Always the petitioner cannot expect improvement in the behaviour of the respondent-workman. Chances have been given as it appears from the evidence led before Labour Court, Bharuch. Enough is enough. For an indefinite period and always, sympathy cannot be shown by the petitioner as it appears from the facts of the case. Misplaced sympathy ought not to have been shown by the Labour Court, Bharuch by awarding reinstatement. 9.2 In the case of Hotilal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para-10 as under:- “10. It needs to be emphasized that the Court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment does not commensurate with the proved charges. As has been highlighted in several cases to which reference has been made above, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases in the indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case as the quoted extracts of the High Court's order would go to show, no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. (See Alexander Machinery Dudley Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. A party appearing before a Court, as to what it is that the Court is addressing its mind. It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. A party appearing before a Court, as to what it is that the Court is addressing its mind. It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of learned Single Judge upholding order of dismissal.” 9.3 In the case of A. T. Mane (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para-9 to 14 as under:- “9. From the above it is clear once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion normally it is not open to the appellate tribunals and courts to substitute their subjective opinion in the place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. In the present case, there is evidence of the inspector who checked the bus which establishes the misconduct of the respondent. The domestic tribunal accepted that evidence and found the respondent guilty. But the courts below misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the ticket less passengers to reject the said finding which, in our opinion, as held by this Court in the case of Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491 is not a condition precedent. We may herein note that the judgment of this Court in Rattan Singh's (supra) has since been followed by this Court in Devendra Swamy vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (2002) 9 SCC 644 . 10. We may herein note that the judgment of this Court in Rattan Singh's (supra) has since been followed by this Court in Devendra Swamy vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (2002) 9 SCC 644 . 10. Since the only ground on which the finding of the domestic tribunal has been set aside being the ground that concerned passengers are not examined or their statement were not recorded, in spite of there being other material to establish the misconduct of the respondent, we are of the opinion, the courts below have erred in allowing the claim of the respondent. In our opinion, the ratio laid down in the above case of Rattan Singh (supra) applies squarely to the facts of this case. 11. In the instant case also there is the evidence of the inspector who conducted the checking which establishes the misconduct of the respondent based on which a finding was given that the respondent was guilty of the misconduct alleged. Based on the said finding, the disciplinary authority has punished the respondent by an order of dismissal. But the Labour Court, and the learned single Judge rejected the said finding and set aside the punishment imposed solely on the ground that the evidence of the passengers concerned was not adduced and their statements were not recorded by the inspector which as stated in the Rattan Singh's case is not a condition precedent. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the courts below have erred in interfering with the finding of fact on an erroneous basis. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment, on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating corporation's fund, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal. 13. This Court in the case of B.S. Hullikatti (supra) held in a similar circumstances that the act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent therein was not fit to be retained as a conductor. 13. This Court in the case of B.S. Hullikatti (supra) held in a similar circumstances that the act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent therein was not fit to be retained as a conductor. It also held that in such cases there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and thereby interfere with the quantum of punishment. 14. As noted above, the Division Bench of the High Court did not dismiss the petition on the ground of delay but held it is not worthwhile condoning the delay because there was no merit in the appeal. Since, we have come to the conclusion that the findings of the Labour Court and that of the learned single Judge are unsustainable in law, the finding of the Division Bench also is liable to be set aside.” 10. The ratio laid down by this Court referred earlier is similarly situated to the facts of the present case as the respondent – original petitioner was conductor and during the course of checking of the post and route was found for misappropriation as he has collected fair from the passengers and did not issue ticket to the passengers and, therefore, to the similar fact, the ratio of the above referred decisions is applicable in the case of the present appellant. 11. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the petition modifying the impugned award and directed the appellant – corporation to reinstate the respondent in service. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal preposition and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, the same is required to be interfered with. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed and accordingly, it is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 22.05.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Kuchchh – Bhuj in Reference (LCB) No.654 of 1996 and the impugned judgment and order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.268 of 2003 are hereby quashed and set aside. The order of dismissal passed by the competent authority against the respondent – workman is hereby confirmed. The order of dismissal passed by the competent authority against the respondent – workman is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.