( 1 ) THOUGH served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent.

( 2 ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constituion of India, the petitioner GSRTC has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 14. 2. 2005 passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch passed in reference No. 14 of 1998 in partly allowing the said reference by quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent owrkman without backwages.

( 3 ) THE respondent workman was serving as Conductor with the petitioner Corporation. While he was on duty on 15. 7. 93 though he has collected the fare from one pasenger out of 17 passengers did not issue ticket and therefore, departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The Inquiry Officer after giving an opportunity to the respondent workman and considering the evidence on record held the charges proved against the respondent workman and the disciplinary authority passed the order of imposing punishment of dismissal of respondent workman from service. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the respondent workman raised the industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Bharuch for its adjudication which was numbered as Reference No. 14 of 1998. The respondent workman has challenged the legality and validity of the inquiry officer. Note only that but even before the Inquiry Officer he has admitted the charge of not issuing ticket to one passenger though fare was collected. On appreciation of evidence, the Labour Court found the charged proved against the respondent workman and only on the ground that nothing was on record to show that during his 26 years service career, there was any case against him and that the amuont involved was to meager, the Labour Court, Bharuch interefered with the order of dismissal exercisign the powers under Section-11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and by quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman without backwages and as fresh appointment. Being aggrievd and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the labour Court, Bharuch dated 14. 2. 2005 passed in Reference no. 14 of 1998 the petitioner Corporation has preferred the present special civil application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) SHRI Hardik Rawal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation has vehemently submitted that in view of the fact that the respondent workman has in fact admitted the charge levelled against him with regard to non issuance of tickets to one passenger out of 17 passengers and not issuing of ticket, the labuor court was not justified in substituting the punishment of dismissal and direcng the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman as fresh appointee. He has also further submitted that in fact there were 80 defaults in past against the respondent workman, howerver, the Officer of the petitioner Corporation did not produce default card before the labour court and for which, necessary departmental action is already initiated against the erring officer. It is also further submitted that reasoning given by the labour court that the amount involved is too meager and therefore the order of dismissal is harsh and / or disproportionate is also perverse. He has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of JANATHA BAZAR (SOUTH KANARA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE wholesale STORES LTD) AND OTHERS V. SECRETARY, SAHAKARI noukarara SANGHA AND OTHERS, 2000 (7) SCC 517, more particularly, para-5 and 6 of the said judgment and has submitted that as held by the Honble Supreme Court if India in the aforesaid decision, once an act of misappropriate is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of shwoing uncalled for sympathay and reinstating the employees in service. Relying on the judgment of the honble Su