Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13455/2003 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13455 of 2003
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
======================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
======================================
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
G.I.
PATEL MANTRI SHRI - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance :
MRS
FALGUNI D PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Respondent(s) :
1,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 21/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 19th
October 2002 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT)
No.34 of 1996 at Exh.28 whereby the punitive order was quashed and
set aside.
2. The
respondent herein was serving as driver. It is alleged that on
13.11.1992 there was an accident wherein the bus was dashed with one
Tempo which was coming from opposite direction as a result of which
tepo driver had died. A departmental inquiry was instituted which
resulted in penalty of stoppage of three increments with future
effect. The respondent filed first appeal which came to be dismissed
and he did not avail of second appellate remedy and raised a disputed
which was numbered as Reference (IT) no.34 of 1996 before Industrial
Tribunal, Surat. The Industrial Tribunal by the aforesaid judgement
and award quashed and set aside the punitive order.
3. Heard
the learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused the relevant
records. As a result of this exercise it is evident that in the
inquiry it was proved that there was a negligence on the part of the
respondent workman. In spite of this finding the Tribunal has
allowed the reference in toto. When there is a negligence, the
Tribunal ought not to have set aside the entire punishment by taking
the negligence very lightly and ought to have imposed some punishment
upon the respondent.
4. Looking
to the overall facts and circumstances and also the previous default
on the part of the respondent, I am of the view that a penalty of
stoppage of one increment with future effect would meet the ends of
justice. Accordingly a penalty of stoppage of one increment with
future effect shall be imposed upon the respondent. The judgement and
award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. This order shall be
implemented within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of writ of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no
order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
Top