Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/19829/2005 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 19829 of 2005
======================================
DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KANTIBHAI
D SOLANKI - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance
:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PR ABICHANDANI for Respondent(s) :
1,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 25/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 10th
February 2005 passed by Labour Court, Himmatnagar in Reference (LCH)
No.79 of 2004 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to
reinstate the workman on his original post with continuity of service
with full back wages.
2. The
respondent was serving as driver with the petitioner Corporation. On
19th January 2002 he consumed liquor and misbehaved with
other persons. In pursuance of this incident a chargesheet came to
be issued and after conducting departmental inquiry a punishment of
stoppage of five increments has been imposed upon the respondent.
However, the reviewing authority vide order dated 11th
February 2003 dismissed him from service. The respondent therefore
raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court wherein the
aforesaid judgement and award came to be passed.
3. Heard
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the
relevant record. As a result of this exercise it is found that in the
inquiry the crucial witnesses were not examined and the guilt was not
proved. In any case it was not a case for imposing extreme punishment
of dismissal from service. At the same time, there are 19 past
defaults against the respondent and the Labour Court ought to have
imposed some punishment upon the respondent. Ordinarily the matter
ought to have remanded to the Labour Court. However, the reference is
of the year 2004 and it may take another few years to decide the
matter. Therefore, having considered all the facts and circumstances
of the case I am of the view that ends of justice would be met by
imposing a penalty of stoppage of three increments with future
effect. Further there there was no justification for grant of back
wages especially when the respondent has not worked during the
interregnum period.
4. In
the premises aforesaid, the judgement and award of the Labour Court
is quashed and set aside qua back wages. Further a penalty of
stoppage of three increments with future effect shall be imposed upon
the respondent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no
order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
Top