ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation with a challenge to the order dated 03.02.2016, passed by the learned Labour Court-I, Jaipur in LCR No.41/2008, whereby the learned Labour Court in exercise of powers given under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’) has converted the penalty of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement of the respondent workman w.e.f. 04.01.2005. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation submits that initially the respondent workman after due enquiry as provided under the law and after following the due process of law was held guilty for embezzlement of 36 rupees as 6 passengers in the bus were found to be without tickets and he was imposed with a penalty of dismissal from service. The learned counsel further submits that prior to the penalty of dismissal from service, the respondent workman earlier was also subjected to enquiry, resulting into penalty in various matters. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Labour Court while converting the penalty of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement, has not taken into consideration material fact that the respondent workman earlier was also subjected to enquiry in 24 other cases of embezzlement. He also submits that the learned Labour Court has limited jurisdiction given under Section 11A of the Act of 1947 to interfere with the impugned order as the respondent workman has been dismissed from service after following due process of enquiry, and held to be guilty. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman submits that the order of the learned Labour Court is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the earlier cases wherein the respondent workman was subjected to enquiry and punishment in some of the cases, were not subject matter of the charge sheet for which enquiry was initiated against him and was imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service. He also submits that the Section 11A of the Act of 1947 gives power to the Labour Court to modify the penalty/punishment given to the workmen by taking into consideration the material fact that whether the punishment given is proportionate to the allegation against the workmen. He also submits that the Section 11A of the Act of 1947 gives power to the Labour Court to modify the penalty/punishment given to the workmen by taking into consideration the material fact that whether the punishment given is proportionate to the allegation against the workmen. Learned counsel for the respondent workman has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India vs. Management & Others, 1973 AIR 1227 . 4. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record along with the petition. 5. The fact remains that the respondent workman has been subjected to enquiry in view of the charge of embezzlement of 36 rupees as he is said to have been taking 6 passengers without tickets and after following the process of enquiry, he was held guilty by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The respondent workman has worked under the petitioner Corporation for twenty years. 6. Section 11A of the Act of 1947 provides for modification of the penalty, which is quoted as under:- "11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals 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 Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour 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 Labour 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." 7. The penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the respondent workman in view of the charge of embezzlement of 36 rupees as he is said to have been taken 6 passengers in the bus without tickets. The learned Labour Court while exercising the powers given under Section 11A of the Act of 1947 has observed that in view of the fact that the respondent workman has been held to be guilty for the embezzlement, he is not entitled for reinstatement back in service, however, looking to the charge and so also the long period of service of 20 years rendered by him, it converted the punishment of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (supra ), has observed as under:- “We are not inclined to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the employers that the stage for interference under Section 11 -A by the Tribunal is reached only when it has to consider the punishment after having accepted the finding of guilt recorded by an employer. It has to be remembered that a Tribunal may hold that the punishment is not justified because the misconduct alleged and found proved is such that it does not warrant dismissal or discharge The Tribunal may also hold that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified because the alleged misconduct itself is not established by the evidence. To come to a conclusion either way, the Tribunal will have to re- appraise the evidence for itself. Ultimately it may hold that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant the punishment of dismissal or discharge. That is why, according to us, -A now gives full power to the Tribunal to go into the evidence and satisfy itself on both these points. Now the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and come to its conclusion enures to it when it has to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it in which an employer relies on the findings recorded by him in a domestic enquiry. Such a power to appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion about the guilt or otherwise was always recognised in a Tribunal when it was deciding a dispute on the basis of evidence adduced before it for the first time. Such a power to appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion about the guilt or otherwise was always recognised in a Tribunal when it was deciding a dispute on the basis of evidence adduced before it for the first time. Both categories are now put on a par by -A. Another change that has been effected by -A is the power conferred on a Tribunal to alter the punishment imposed by an employer. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is established, either by the domestic enquiry accepted by it or by the evidence adduced before it for the first time, the Tribunal originally had no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Once the misconduct is proved, the Tribunal had to sustain the order of punishment unless it was harsh indicating victimisation. Under - A, though the Tribunal may hold that the misconduct is proved, nevertheless it may be of the opinion that the order of discharge or dismissal for the said misconduct is not justified. In other words, the Tribunal may hold that the proved misconduct does not merit punishment by way of discharge or dismissal. It can, under such circumstances, award to the workman only lesser punishment instead. The power to interfere with the punishment and alter the same has been now conferred on the Tribunal by -A. Mr Deshmukh, rather strenuously urged that in all its previous decisions, this Court had not considered a breach—or an illegality, as he calls it—committed by an employer is not holding a domestic enquiry. The learned Counsel urged that this Court has consistently held in several decisions that there is an obligation on the part of an employer to conduct a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the Standing Orders before passing an order of discharge or dismissal. Hence an order passed without such an enquiry is, on the face of it, illegal. The effect of such an illegal order deprives the employer of an opportunity being given to him to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal to justify his action. These aspects, according to the learned Counsel, have not been considered by this Court when it recognised an opportunity to be given to an employer to adduce evidence before the Tribunal. These aspects, according to the learned Counsel, have not been considered by this Court when it recognised an opportunity to be given to an employer to adduce evidence before the Tribunal. The above aspect was stressed before us by Mr Deshmukh in support of the contention that -A has taken note of such an illegality committed by employers and has now made it obligatory to conduct a domestic enquiry. According to him, if no such proper and valid domestic enquiry precedes the order imposing punishment, the Tribunal now has no alternative but to order reinstatement on that ground alone. We have already indicated our views regarding the scope of -A and held that the right of an employer to adduce such evidence before the Tribunal has not been taken away. Mr Deshmukh referred us to Section 23 of the Act prohibiting a workman from going on strike in the circumstances mentioned therein and further pointed out that if a strike is illegal, it cannot be lawful. Similarly, an illegal act of an employer in not holding a domestic enquiry cannot be made legal.” 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent workman has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in 24 other cases and in some other cases he has been imposed penalty of fine, but those were not the part of the charge-sheet. The Labour Court has exercised the power given under law with due consideration. 10. Taking into consideration the charges against the respondent workman and so also the period of 20 years of service rendered by him under the petitioner Corporation and further the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted above, the Court feels that the award passed by the learned Labour Court does not call for any interference as the punishment of dismissal from service in such circumstances is harsh and disproportionate to the charges which deserves to be interfered as has been done by the learned Labour Court. 11. This Court finds no ground to interfere in the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court. 12. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. 13. Since the main petition has been dismissed the stay application and pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.