( 1 ) IN the group of writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the interesting question about the extent and ambit of the jurisdiction and power of the Labour Court/industrial Tribunal exercising the jurisdiction and power under Section 11a as well as Sections 7, 7a and 15 of the Industrial Disputes act. to interfere with the order imposing the punishment by the employer- management, arise for consideration. The moot questions for consideration are: (1) what is the extent and ambit of jurisdiction of Labour Court/ Industrial tribunal to interfere in finding by the employer-management regarding misconduct of workman; (2) Whether the jurisdiction and powers of the Labour court/ Industrial Tribunal under Section 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act to interfere with the order imposing punishment is confirmed to only the punishment of discharge or dismissal or also extend to the punishments other than the said punishments; (3) If not, whether the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal can interfere with the punishment other than that of the discharge or dismissal passed by the management under the provisions of Sections 7, 7a and 15 of the Industrial dispute Act. If yes. (4) what is the extent of the jurisdiction and power of Labour court/ Industrial Tribunal and under what circumstances the order of such punishment can be interfered with?

( 2 ) THE antagonistic views are asserted by the management-employer and the workmen while some of the interveners have chosen the middle course. The assertion by the management is that, after the insertion of Section 11a. I. D. Act, the Labour Court Industrial Tribunal can interfere with the order of sentence of discharge and dismissal only and not in any other form of punishment and it cannot substitute or award the other punishment than the one imposed by the management and, if at all the circumstances justify the interference, it can only refer the dispute back to the management for decision. On the other hand, the view asserted on behalf of the workmen is that the Labour Court/ industrial Tribunal can interfere with the order of punishment if at all the order is not legal and proper and can impose the punishment which it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. The middle course asserted by some of the interveners is that the Labour Court/ industrial Tribunal can exercise the jurisdiction and interfere with the order of punishment of dismissal or discharge under Section 11a, Industrial Disputes act and can award lesser punishment in view of the said punishment considering the circumstances of the case and so far as the other punishments are concerned, the Labour Court/ Tribunal can interfere only if the punishment is oppressive and disproportionate. These rival contentions are required to be considered in view of the relevant provisions of the Industrial disputes Act specially Sections 7, 7a, 11a and 15, Schedules 2 arid 3 of the Act, and the Standing Orders and the catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and other courts prior to the insertion of section 11a in the statute on December 15, 1971 and after that. With a view to appreciating the rival contentions, facts of each matter may be considered in short.

( 3 ) IN nine out of 10 Special Civil applications, the petitioner is the Gujarat state Road Transport Corporation and out of the nine, in six petitions the workmen are bus conductors and in other three the workmen are a driver, a mechanic and a watchman. In one Special civil Application, the petitioner is the gujarat Industrial Development corporation and the workman is the junior Clerk-Cashier. In all the matters the awards interfering with the punishment other than that of the discharge or dismissal are challenged.

( 4 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 327 of 1985: The respondent-conductor of the bus collected the fare of Rs. 1. 50 from one lady passenger and issued the ticket for Re. 0. 75 only, which misconduct was found by the checking party. In an inqui