JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN,J.)

This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order, dated 04.06.2018 passed in W.P(MD)No.1656 of 2014.

2. The Appellant is the public transport corporation. The second respondent is a Conductor. On 01.12.1999, while he was on duty in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-1228 in the route Thogamalai to Musiri, the Checking Inspector checked the bus at Musiri Periyarpalam and found that a male passenger was travelling without ticket. When the passenger was enquired in the presence of the Driver and the second respondent, the passenger told that he boarded the bus at Kulithalai and paid Rs.2.25 for the journey upto Musiri Periyarpalam, but, the second respondent did not issue ticket. Therefore, the second respondent has misappropriated the fund. When the Checking Inspector checked the second respondent's bag, he found a sum of Rs.31.25/- in excess and the explanation given by the second respondent was not satisfied by the Checking Inspector. Hence a Charge Memo dated 08.12.1999 was issued to the second respondent and an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report, dated 02.02.2000, finding that the second respondent was guilty of the charges framed against him and the second respondent was issued with a second show cause notice and dismissed from service by order, dated 19.04.2000.

3. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the second respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.136 of 2011 before the Labour Court, Trichirappalli. The first respondent, who dealt with the case, found that the charges are proved against the second respondent and also confirmed the findings of the guilty of the second respondent. However, he found that the order of dismissal imposed on the second respondent was disproportionate and therefore, the order of dismissal was set aside and reinstated the second respondent without any backwages and other attendant benefits after inflicting the punishment of increment cut for two years without cumulative effect.

4. Aggrieved over the said order of the Labour Court, the appellant Management filed the writ petition before the Writ Court. The Writ Court, after considering the entire facts, dismissed the writ petition stating that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. There was no reason to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the said writ petition. Challenging the said order of dismissal of the writ petition, the Management has filed the present Writ Appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the second respondent while working as Conductor, misappropriated the fund by not issuing ticket to a passenger. While the Checking Inspector checked the bag of the Conductor, he found an excess sum of Rs.31.25/- and misappropriated the fund of the corporation and caused loss to them. Further, he would submit that by exercising the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, the Labour Court has modified the punishment of dismissal and stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect, which is unwarranted. He would further submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (i) Regional Manager, RSRTC Vs Ghanshyam Sharma reported in [2002(10) SCC 330], (ii)Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd Vs. N.B.Narawade reported in [2005(3) SCC 134] and (iii) U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs Suresh Chand Sharma reported in [(2010) 6 SCC 555], has held that the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate in the case of misappropriation. It is also held that in a case of misappropriation, the quantum of amount is immaterial and it is only the intention and mens rea of the delinquent, are criteria. Further, he would submit that the powers conferred under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, have to be exercised judicially. Only in extraordinary circumstances, where the punishment is grossly