1. By way of this petition, the petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference(LCJ) No. 283 of 1998, dated 13.04.1998, whereby the Labour Court passed the order of reinstatement in favour of the respondent-workman, and thereby, reduced the penalty of dismissal from service to lowering the respondent in two stages in his basic pay.

2. The respondent was working with the petitioner as conductor. It is alleged that, on the relevant date, while the respondent was on his duty on a bus on Amblash-Keshod route, a surprise checking of the said bus was carried out. During the checking, it was found that the respondent had not issued tickets to three of the passengers and on the basis of the same a departmental inquiry was conducted against him and on completion thereof, he was ordered to be removed from the service on the ground that the misconduct alleged against him stood proved. The respondent-workman, thereafter, raised an industrial dispute, which was numbered as Reference(LCJ) No. 283 of 1998. The labour Court, in the impugned order, recorded that the misconduct of non-issuance of tickets to the passengers, as alleged against the respondent, stands proved. However, it reduced the punishment of removal of service of the respondent to lowering him in two stages in his basic pay in exercise of powers under Section-11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aforesaid order is challenged by the petitioner-S.T. Corporation in this petition.

3. It is pertinent to note that while admitting the petition, this Court stayed the order of the Labour Court subject to payment of benefits under Section-17(B) of the Act to the respondent. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, has submitted that since, subsequently, the respondent-workman attained the age of superannuation, aforesaid order was modified by this Court holding that the same will not be applicable.

4. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner-S.T. Corporation, has submitted that misconduct alleged against the respondent-workman stood proved, which is of a serious nature, whereby it is alleged that the respondent-workman did not issue tickets to three of the passengers travelling on a bus enroute to Amblash-Keshod with an oblique motive. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the past record of the respondent, which was placed before the Labour Court and the same is forming part of the compilation at Pages-54 onwards. On the basis of the same, learned Counsel argued that it is not a case, wherein the exercise of powers under Section-11A of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Labour Court is justified and the labour Court has committed an error.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Bhamre, learned Advocate for Mr. Medipally, learned Counsel for the respondent-workman, vehemently opposed the petition and supported the order of the Labour Court.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the order of the Labour Court as well as the documents produced on the record. The labour Court, in my view, has rightly found that the misconduct alleged against the respondent-workman stood proved in the departmental inquiry. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had not issued tickets to three of the passengers, which was his duty. The Labour Court, however, found that it is not proved that any amount has been misappropriated by the petitioner and by holding so reduced the punishment of dismissal from service to lowering the respondent in two stages in his basic pay. Here, it is required to be noted that, even if, some passengers might have tried to save the respondent-workman by saying that they have not paid money, in the departmental inquiry, the department can draw adverse inference, in this behalf. It is not in dispute that, in any case, the respondent had not issued tickets, obviously, with an oblique motive. By the aforesaid action of the respondent-wor