R.C.LAHOTI, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE appellant was a conductor in KSRTC, KH Road, Bangalore. On 17/1/1985 at about 5.00 p.m. the checking staff intercepted the bus plying on route and found that there were 49 passengers in the bus but the appellant, the duty conductor, had not issued tickets to 8 passengers inspite of fare having been collected from them. The departmental enquiry on charges of misconduct was held against him and the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. While imposing such punishment, the disciplinary authority took into consideration previous service history of the appellant wherein the appellant was found to have been involved in more than 41 cases of similar nature. Earlier, the appellant was penalised even by imposing punishment of withholding of his increments and still the appellant did not show any sign of improvement.

(3) THE appellant put in issue the finding of departmental proceedings as also punishment imposed therein by raising an industrial dispute under section 10(1)(c) of I.D. Act. The learned labour court found enquiry to be defective and give the employer an opportunity of adducing evidence to substantiate the charges in the proceedings before the labour court. The labour court also found the charge of misconduct proved. However, it formed an opinion that since the amount of defalcation involved in the incident dated 17/01/1985 was small, penalty of dismissal would be too harsh. The labour court further held that considering the peculiarities and various factors of the present case, it would meet the ends of justice if the worker, the appellant was ordered to be re-instated, subjecting him to punishment of loss of back wages and other consequential benefits. Inspite of holding so vide para 15 of the award, while formulating the operative part of the award, the labour court directed the appellant to continue in service, to be reinducted in the same post where he was working and wherefrom he was removed with denial of two increments with cumulative effect. The employer was also directed to pay the appellant - workman all his backwages along with consequential benefits and costs for the proceedings.

(4) THE award of the labour court was put in issue by respondent - corporation by filing the writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. A learned single judge of the High Court dismissed the petition recording the finding that the exercise of power by the labour court under section 11 (A) of the I.D. Act could not be termed as illegal. The respondent - corporation preferred a writ appeal which was filed after the expiry of period of limitation. The division bench condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, the division bench found that the award of the labour court and the order of learned single judge confirming the same were not justified as interfering with the discretion of disciplinary authority in the matter of awarding punishment was totally uncalled for. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the order of the learned single judge was set aside, the award of the labour court was quashed and the order of the disciplinary authority awarding major punishment of dismissal from service was restored. The employee has filed this appeal by special leave putting in issue the order of the division bench condoning the delay in filing the appeal as also the final order allowing the writ appeal.

(5) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case, a division bench did not err in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The lawyer engaged by the respondent - corporation was holding the papers and did not inform the corporation of the decision in the writ appeal. The corporation, having felt convinced of the default on the part of the lawyer, removed him from the panel of the corporation and engaged another counsel through whom the writ appeal was filed. Suffici