- (1.)RESPONDENT No. 1 was a conductor in petitioner corporation. He was charged of having collected the fare from five passengers without giving tickets to them. He was consequently dismissed from service after domestic enquiry. He challenged this before the Labour Court under section 61 read with section 31(3) of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act. His claim was accepted and he was ordered to be reinstated in service but without any back wages by order dated 18.12.1985.
(2.)PETITIONER corporation took an appeal against this order before the Industrial Court and so did respondent No.1. But the Court vide order dated 21.9.1988 dismissed both appeals and affirmed the order of Labour Court after noticing that respondent No. I had already resm:ned duty and was working. It also found that Labour Court had passed this order under section 170 -A of M.P.I.R. Act.
Petitioner corporation has filed this petition assailing the two orders. The only point canvassed by Shri Dhupar before us was that both the Labour Court and Industrial Court had no competence and jurisdiction ·to interfere in the punishment awarded to respondent No. 1 because section 107 -A was incorporated in M.P.I.R. Act by Amendment Act of 43 of 1981 when the incident had taken place on 21.10.1980. In other words, it was suggested that section 107 -A could not be given any retrospective application to cover the case of respondent No. 1. No other issue was agitated or pleaded.

(3.)THERE is no dispute that section 107 -A confers power on Labour and Industrial Court to give appropriate relief in case of a discharge or dismissal of employee pleading setting aside of dismissal or discharge and directing reinstatement of the aggrieved employee or of awarding lesser punishment. The only dispute is whether this power was exercisable in reference to an incident which had occurred before enactment of this provision.