( 1 ) THE Divisional Controller, NWKRTC is before me challenging the award of the Additional Labour Court, Hubli, passed in KID No. 36 of 1999.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT-WORKMAN was working as a Conductor. He was appointed in the year 1993. On 9-6-1997 the bus was going from pandarapura to Bailahongal and the same was checked at Mangalwad, i. e. , Stage No. 46. It was noticed that the respondent had failed to collect the fare of Rs. 7. 50 each from 10 passengers who were travelling from pandarapura to Mangalwad (stage Nos. 50 to 46 ). In view of this, a fine of Rs. 750/- in all was imposed on all the ticketless passengers. The respondent-workman was kept under suspension and on the very same day Articles of charge were issued. Enquiry was conducted. Enquiry authority found that the respondent was guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 27-1-1999, ordering removal of the respondent from service. Same was subjected to reference in KID No. 36 of 1999. Evidence was recorded. Thereafter, the labour Court has passed the order which is challenged in this petition. The impugned order reads as follows. "claim petition is hereby allowed in part. The order of dismissal dated 27-1-1999 passed by the respondent is hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the claimant into service with continuity of service, and with all other consequential benefits, but without back wages, within 2 months from the date of publication of this award. The respondent is further directed to recover Rs. 5,000/- as fine from the claimant in his salary after his reinstatement in 10 equal installments. Send the copies to the Government for publication".

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for petitioner and perused the impugned award.

( 4 ) ADMITTED facts would reveal that the respondent was subjected to an enquiry for having failed to issue Tickets and collect the fare from 10 passengers. The enquiry was held and the Labour Court has answered that the enquiry held was fair and proper. While considering the merits of the matter the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that reinstatement without back wages would be the answer in such a case.

( 5 ) THIS finding of the Labour Court, in my considered view, runs against the two well-known judgments of Supreme Court in somewhat identical circumstances. In a case in Regional Manager, Rajasthan State road Transport Corporation v Sohan Lal, 2004 AIR SCW 5530 : (2004)8 SCC 218 : 2004-III-LLJ-1078 (SC) the Supreme Court noticed in para 10, which reads as under:"we notice from the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that the respondent-workman had indulged in misconduct which has not only led to monetary loss to the Corporation but the Corporation has also lost confidence in the said workman. Therefore, to continue such an employee in the employment of the Corporation by virtue of a judicial order, in our opinion, is an act of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in law or in equity. The finding that the workman has committed the misconduct in question of not issuing tickets to passengers is a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence recorded therein. This finding was affirmed by the learned Single Judge and the High Court has not set aside the finding. Therefore, the question of moulding the relief on the facts of this case did not arise at all. The offer of the respondent to forego the back wages in lieu of his being reinstated is not an offer to be taken into consideration by the Court unless and until the finding of the Tribunal on misconduct was set aside and having perused the records including the order of the Tribunal, we are satisfied that this is not one of those cases in which there was room for setting aside such a finding".

( 6 ) IN a subsequent judgment rendered recently on 27-9-2004, in divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) v A. T. Mane, 2004 (6) Kar. L. J.