.1 IN ThE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS ThE 4Th DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE ThE HON’SLE MR.JUSTICE G.PATRI BASAVANA GOUD WRIT PETITION IIJMBER 24265 or 1990 eeaeefleeflefleeneeeeea_e.nee_ee Between: 1 • Kernatska &ete Road Transport Corporatien Central Offices Bangalore 560 021 by Its Chief Law Officer 2. The Deputy General Manager end Divisional Controller KSRTC, Gulberga Division Qi 1barge (By Sri V. Iibkunda Menon, Advocate) And: 1. Sri enksr son of Medappe PD ICankatti Humnabad Bider District 2. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Qilberge efl5pofldeflt5 (By Sri K. Subberao, Adv. for Rel; Sri H. R. %anthakusari HCGP for R—2) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 221 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the award dated Q-4—199O at Annexure—D made by the Labour Court bulbarga in Reference No.30 of 1987 in so far as it relates to setting aide ef the order of dismissal at the first respondent end his reinstatement beck into service as conductor but without back wages and without continuity of service from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. This writ petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER U, 1 —2— ORDER Ms. 5 hanthakumari, learned HCGP appears for the second respondent. 2. On the charge of Øossession of old tickets with an intention of re—issuing them, first respondent conductor in the petitioner KSRTC was proceeded against in a domestic enquiry and on proof of misconduct 1 he was dismissed from service. While adjudicating the industrial dispute raised by him in that regard, fairness of the domestic enquiry had been coceded by the workman, and the Labour Court, by the impugned award,has held the said charge as proved, but in place ef punishment of dismissal from sdrvlce, has Substituted a lesser punishment of cfomplete Lenial of back wages and denial of the benefit of of tbntinuLtpfservice also, from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. With this lesser punishment, first respondent is directed to be reinstated in service. Having regard to the charge proved, punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate and4hete .i5 no arbitrariness in the Labour Court acting under Section flA of the Industrial ‘—V Diputs Ict 947 and in substituting the lesser punishrent. as referred to above. 3. Writ. Petition dismisseda 3UE *r 1<