( 1 ) ). inst the award dated 31/04/1989 passed by the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad, directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent Bus Conductor on his original post with continuity of service without back wages, the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has filed this petition.

( 2 ) ). By the order dated 11/08/1986 the respondent-Bus Conductor was dismissed from service on the ground that on 14th September, 1984 when the respondent was on duty as a Conductor in a bus plying between himatnagar and Gokalpura, it was found that - (i) he had issued tickets to 15 passengers for the fare of Rs. 2. 00 each which were issued by him in his previous trip which started at 13. 15 hours between Himatnagar and Gokalpura. That means he has re-issued 15 tickets; (ii) he had also not issued tickets to passengers even though he had recovered fare from them; (iii) he had issued 3 tickets in such a manner that they can be reissued in subsequent trip; and (iv) he had not issued tickets to in all 4 persons. All the aforesaid charges are proved after holding detailed inquiry against the respondent. The competent authority further took into consideration that from the service record it can be seen that the respondent was involved in 44 default cases and on one occasion he was dismissed from service. In this view of the matter, the competent authority of the State Transport corporation passed the order dismissing the respondent from service.

( 3 ) ). Against that order the respondent preferred Ref. (LCA) No. 1760 of 1988 before the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court the legality and propriety of the inquiry was not challenged by the respondent. The labour Court, therefore, held that the respondent has impliedly admitted the misconduct alleged against him. However, the Labour Court considered the question whether lenient view should be taken and punishment should be reduced. It should he noted that before the Tribunal various judgments were cited including the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application no. 4556 of 1988 decided on 17-8-1989 wherein this Court has observed as under :"ordinarily we think that the contention of Mr. Shelat is well founded that in cases of misapropriation the Labour Court would be slow in interfering with the order of dismissal from service because one cannot expect the employer to retain a person who has betrayed the tendency of misappropriating Corporations funds while in service. "inspite of the aforesaid judgment the Labour Court held that this would be a fit case to give one more chance to the workman to correct and reform himself. The Labour Court also noted that record of the respondent was not blotless and that he was dismissed earlier. However, looking to the long service and looking to the fact that he would not be able to do any other work by which he can earn the livelihood, the Labour Court reinstated the respondent on his original post and imposed the penalty of withholding four increments with permanent effect. The Labour Court also directed that the respondent be reinstated in service without back wages.

( 4 ) ). Mr. Shelat, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the order passed by the Labour Court is on the face of it perverse and illegal. He submitted that the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the gravity of the misconduct committed by the respondent and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the order of punishment passed by the departmental authority is in any way harsh, excessive or unjustified.

( 5 ) ). In our view, the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner requires to be accepted. Under Sec. 11a of the Industrial Disputes act the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court is not having unguided power to set aside the justified order passed by the management. The power under sec. 11a has to be exercised judicially and the Industrial Tribunal or the labour Court can interfere with the de