respondent who was the conductor on the bus, recorded that only six trips were undertaken by the bus. Entries of the sale of some tickets were not shown by the respondent in the waybill. He did not sign the way-bill after verifying the accounts. A charge-sheet was therefore issued to the respondent on 12.1.1985. An enquiry was conducted against him and when the enquiry officer found him guilty of the alleged acts of misconduct, he was dismissed from service with effect from 3.7.1985. The respondent preferred departmental appeals which were dismissed. He therefore raised an industrial dispute which was preferred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Solapur, in Reference (IDA) No.16 of 1988. The Labour Court has passed the impugned award by concluding that the enquiry held against the respondent was fair and proper and that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were not perverse. It therefore concluded that the respondent had indulged in the acts of misconduct alleged against him. However, the Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service but without back wages. The Labour Court while considering the past service record observed that although the respondent had been charge-sheeted earlier for various acts of misconduct, he was subsequently reinstated. The
