Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/870/2004 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 870 of 2004
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
LAXMANBHAI
KANABHAI MARADIA - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MS
ROOPAL R PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR KISHOR M PAUL for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 28/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 30th
July 2003 passed by Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference (LCJ) no.182
of 2000 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate
the respondent with all consequential benefits without back wages and
also with penalty of stoppage of three increments with future effect.
2. The
respondent was working with the petitioner Corporation as a
conductor. It was found that while on duty the respondent had punched
the tickets in such a way that the same can be reissued. He was
chargesheeted, departmental proceedings were initiated and ultimately
his services were dismissed. The respondent raised a dispute which
culminated into the aforesaid reference and the Labour Court passed
the judgement and award as stated hereinabove.
3. Heard
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the
relevant documents on record. The main contention raised by the
petitioner is that looking to the past conduct the Labour Court
ought not to have reinstated the workman in service and in any case
the penalty imposed is on the lower side.
4. Having
heard the parties, I am of the view that the judgement of the Labour
Court is justified for reinstating the respondent workman as
dismissal from service is a penalty too harsh. However, looking to
the 31 defaults committed by the respondent, the penalty of stoppage
of three increments is on the lower side. Looking to the overall
facts and circumstances of the case, especially looking to the 31
defaults, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met by
imposing a penalty of stoppage of five increments with future
effect.
5. Accordingly
the penalty of stoppage of three increments is converted into five
increments with future effect. The rest of the award is not
disturbed. The award of the Labour Court is modified accordingly.
Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
6. The
respondent will be reinstated within one month and the monetary
benefits will be given within four months from today.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
Top