Gujarat High Court High Court

Gujarat vs Bhalabhai on 13 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Gujarat vs Bhalabhai on 13 December, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/14867/2004	 3/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14867 of 2004
 

 


 

For
Approval and Signature:  
 
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
 

BHALABHAI
BHADABHAI PADAYA - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MS
MONALI H BHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR KISHOR
M PAUL for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 18/08/2010 

 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

By
way of this petition the petitioner has challenged the legality and
validity of the judgment and award passed by the learned Industrial
Tribunal No.2, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.190 of 1997 dated
16/09/2003 whereby the reference of the respondent was partly allowed
and the learned Tribunal has set aside the order of competent
authority and modify the punishment to the extent of withholding of
annual increments for three months with temporary effect and further
directed to pay difference of salary amount to the respondent.

2. The
facts of the case are that respondent was working as conductor and
while checking the tray, it was found that the respondent had removed
the pin from the Ticket Block and it is in disorder. The ticket
No.371 was found on Top of the Block whereas while checking each
ticket of the said block having denomination of Rs.8.25, the tickets
No.353, 354, 355, 356 were found in between the block. Thus, the
respondent had intentionally shown ticket No.31 in his handwriting
and ticket No.341 was not shown in issued column. Thus, with a bad
intention to collect these tickets back and reissue the same as and
when possible, the closing of accounts were not made in the Way-Bill
for the tickets-block of denomination of Rs.8.25/- tickets. The
respondent had not shown the details of tickets issued in sale column
and also not shown the total in the way-bill. The Departmental
Inquiry was held and competent authority had imposed punishment of
stoppage of annual increments for three years with future effect.

2.1 Against
the said order of competent authority, the respondent has preferred a
reference before the Labour Court and the Labour Court has passed the
judgment and award as aforesaid and the said judgment and award of
the Labour Court has given rise to this petition.

3. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner has mainly submitted that respondent was
working as conductor and checking was carried out, certain
irregularities were found and therefore the penalty of stoppage of
annual increments for three years with future effect was imposed.

4. Having
perused the papers and having heard the learned Advocates for the
parties, it is clear that respondent had committed eight defaults and
therefore I am of the view that interest of justice would be met by
imposing a penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect,
which was imposed on 16/12/1994.

5. In
the above premises, the petition is partly allowed by imposing a
penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent. Such penalty shall be imposed from
16/12/1994. The consequential benefits will be paid within a period
of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.

(K
S JHAVERI, J.)

sompura

   

Top