Proved short remittance and misconduct justify dismissal where loss of confidence is decisive and punishment is not disproportionate.

A bus conductor's proved short remittance and drunken misconduct amounted to gross misconduct because the conductor acted in a fiduciary capacity and the employer's loss of confidence was controlling. The amount involved was not decisive, and the Labour Court's own finding that the gravest charge was proved made reinstatement inappropriate. Interference with punishment is justified only where the penalty is shockingly disproportionate, and that threshold was not met. The order granting reinstatement with back wages was therefore unsustainable, and dismissal from service was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of a bus conductor for proved short remittance and drunken misconduct was liable to be interfered with and converted into reinstatement with back wages.

Analysis: The charge of pilferage/short remittance was found proved in the domestic enquiry and accepted by the Labour Court, yet reinstatement was ordered. The Court held that a bus conductor acts in a fiduciary capacity, and even a proved case of misappropriation or short remittance constitutes gross misconduct. The amount involved is not decisive; the controlling consideration is the employer's loss of confidence. Once the Labour Court itself had recorded proof of the gravest charge, the High Court ought not to have affirmed reinstatement. Interference with punishment is justified only where it is shockingly disproportionate, which was not the position here.

Conclusion: The order directing reinstatement and back wages was unsustainable, and dismissal from service was upheld.

---