JUDGMENT :

D.N. Patel, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred against the award dated 24th May, 2004 in Reference (LCB) No. 13 of 1998 passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch, whereby the order of dismissal from services of the respondent workman has been set aside and the respondent workman has been ordered to be reinstated in service and the punishment of dismissal has been substituted with that of stoppage of four increments with future effect.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation mainly contended that the respondent workman, after collecting fare from passengers, has not issued tickets which were found out during checking of the bus, wherein the respondent workman was working as a conductor. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued and thereafter, an opportunity of being heard was given to the respondent workman. Subsequently, an inquiry was held, validity whereof was not under challenge before the Labour Court. Thus, after holding a legal and valid inquiry, punishment of dismissal was imposed by the petitioner. The said order of dismissal was challenged by the workman through a Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Labour Court, Bharuch, vide its award dated 24th May, 2004 has set aside the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the respondent workman by the petitioner Corporation and has ordered reinstatement of the respondent workman by substituting the punishment of dismissal by stoppage of four increments with future effect.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment awarded by the petitioner was not shockingly disproportionate. It was just, proper and adequate keeping in mind the nature of misconduct on the part of the respondent workman. The fare was collected from respective passengers, but tickets were not issued by the respondent workman. The respondent workman is holding a post of trust. The only work with which the petitioner is wedded is running an ST bus and only two persons are important so far as the petitioner Corporation is concerned, e. one is the conductor and another is the driver. Conductor is the earning member of the petitioner Corporation. If an earning member of the petitioner, upon whom the petitioner is relying mainly for its income, it can be said that he is holding a post of trust and when misappropriation is done deliberately, knowingly and by the person holding a post of trust, it always tantamounts to grave misconduct and the petitioner has to curb such type of misconduct with an "iron hand". The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the words "iron hand" have been used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similarly situated matters, especially in the case of Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Etawah and others v. Hotilal and another reported in (2003) 3 SCC, 605. The amount misappropriated may be large or small, but the petitioner Corporation is concerned with, every penny which is to be collected by conductors. A small amount per person per conductor per workman and misappropriation thereof, leads to several difficulties to the petitioner and it goes to the very existence of the petitioner. The post of respondent workman is the most important post so far as the petitioner is concerned. Driver and conductor are the only two persons who are given importance in employment of petitioner Corporation. The conductor is the person from whom physical as well as mental discipline is expected wherein, misappropriation even of a smaller amount cannot be tolerated by the petitioner Corporation. Once legality and validity of inquiry is accepted by the respondent workman, the only power and jurisdiction vested in the Labour Court under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to evaluate and reweigh the quantum of punishment. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, punishment inflicted by the petiti