( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the award of the labour Court, dated 28-1-1999 passed in ID. No. 335 of 1994 by the III additional Labour Court, Bangalore, setting aside the order of dismissal and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service and 40% of the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this case are as under. The respondent was appointed as a conductor in the petitioner- Corporation in the year 1990. The respondent was on duty on 25-9-1991 in vehicle No. KA 25f 48 on route No. 236/1 plying from Peenya II Stage to kengeri Satellite Town. The checking officials checked the bus at kengeri Bus Stand and found that the respondent was in possession of unaccounted excess cash of Rs. 97. 75. On the very same day a memo was served on the respondent at the spot which he received and acknowledged. Thereafter, the respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry and a charge-sheet was issued to him. He failed to submit any reply. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was initiated against the respondent. After detailed enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the respondent is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority acting on the said report and also taking note of the fact that the respondent was found guilty earlier on 75 occasions proceeded to pass an order dismissing him from service on 13-8-1994. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent filed an application under section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Karnataka Amendment) act, 1988 before the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, contending that one passenger gave Rs. 100 note and purchased ticket and while getting down from the bus the said passenger has forgotten to collect back the change. In spite of the said explanation the checking officials disbelieved the say of the workman, issued a charge memo and therefore he contended that the charge levelled against him is without any substance. The Enquiry Officer without extending sufficient opportunity and without considering the explanation of the respondent as well as his defence witnesses has submitted its findings holding the first party as guilty of charges levelled against him. Therefore, the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority are illegal and contrary to the mandatory requirements of Regulation 23 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 and therefore sought for setting aside the order of dismissal.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed its counter-statement reiterating the aforesaid facts and contended that enquiry held was legal and valid, full opportunity was given to the respondent who has participated in the enquiry and it is only on appreciation of the material on record the Enquiry officer has submitted his report holding the respondent as guilty of the charges levelled against him and the disciplinary authority taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and also taking note of the fact that on an earlier occasion 75 times he has been found guilty has proceeded to pass the order of dismissal. Therefore, the petitioner submits the punishment imposed on the respondent is proportionate to the gravity of charges proved and therefore submits the said order do not call for any interference.

( 4 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings the following issues were framed by the labour Court. 1. Whether domestic enquiry held against first party is fair and proper? 2. Whether order of dismissal passed by the second party management on 13-8-1994 in No. KST. BTS. DFL. D7. 5346 : 5245 is sustainable? 3. Whether first party is entitled for reinstatement in service with back wages and other service benefits? 4. To what order?

( 5 ) ON 15-6-1996 the respondent filed a memo conceding the