1. Shri Bagul, learned Advocate waives for the sole respondent.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

4. The petitioner assails the judgment and award of the Labour Court, dated 24.11.2014 in Reference (IDA) No.22 of 2011. The strenuous contentions of Shri Nangare for the petitioner are as follows:-

(a) The petitioner jointed as a Bus-conductor on 1.11.1989 with the respondent.

(b) On 22.10.2008, while the petitioner was on duty, the flying squad of the respondent caused a surprise check of the Bus at Patoda.

(c) It was noticed that the petitioner had collected fare of Rs.14/- from one Sr. Citizen lady passenger, but had issued a ticket of Rs.5/- only.

(d) Cash amount of Rs.11/- was found in excess.

(e) The petitioner was charge sheeted on 22.10.2008 under clauses 7(a) and (j), 11, 12(b) and 22 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules.

(f) The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge sheet on 8.11.2008. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was commenced.

(g) Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 7.1.2010 along with the report of the enquiry officer calling upon him to explain as to why the punishment of termination from service should not be imposed upon him.

(h) The petitioner before tendering his reply, preferred Complaint (ULP) No. 3 of 2010, before the Labour Court.

(i) By an ex-parte ad-interim order, the show cause notice was stayed.

(j) By order dated 10.10.2010, the Labour Court allowed the interim relief application, filed under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, thereby staying the show cause notice.

(k) The respondent, preferred Revision (ULP) No. 17 of 2010.

(l) By judgment and order dated 24.1.2011, the Industrial Court allowed the Revision filed by the respondent, quashed and set aside, the interim order dated 10.10.2010 and rejected the application Exhibit U/2.

(m) On 31.1.2011, the respondent awarded the punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner w.e.f. 3.2.2011.

(n) The petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the ID Act before the appropriate Government.

(o) By order dated 9.11.2011, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, which was registered as Reference (IDA) No. 22 of 2011.

(p) By Part I award dated 3.1.2014 below Exhibit 46, the Labour Court concluded that the enquiry has been conducted in a fair and proper manner and the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse.

(q) By judgment and order dated 24.11.2014, the Labour Court concluded that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was not shockingly disproportionate to the gravity and seriousness of the charges proved against him, in the light of his blemished past service record.

5. Shri Nangare has strenuously contended that the misconduct at issue involves only an amount of Rs.11/-. It is a paltry amount and he does not deserve the punishment of dismissal from service. He further submits that though the default card may indicate 25 punishments, the same are of minor nature and for various reasons, which do not deserve any consideration while arriving at the quantum of punishment.

6. Shri Nangare has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Palghat BPL & PSP Thozhiali Union Vs. BPL India Ltd. and another [(1995) 6 SCC 237], to support his contention that an unintended misconduct or a misconduct of a minor and technical character should be treated leniently. He, therefore, prays that since the petitioner has ten years of service left, leniency be shown and the punishment be suitably modified by allowing this petition.

7. Shri Bagul, learned Advocate has opposed the petition on the ground that the default card indicates 25 mis-conducts for which the petitioner has been punished. These 25 punishments and the present misconducts have occurred in a span of about 19 years of employment which indicates the attitude and conduct of the petitioner.

8. He further submits that