Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/745/2001 2/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 745 of 2001
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
==============================================================
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 ?
==============================================================
G
S R T CORPN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
VRAJLAL
N SAVALAIA - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR GK RATHOD for Respondent(s) :
1,
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 07/09/2005
ORAL
JUDGMENT
In
the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of
the award dated 17th April 2000 passed by the Labour
Court, Junagadh.
2. The
respondent who was engaged as a conductor by the petitioner
Corporation was found to have committed misconduct of having remained
unauthorizedly absent for a period between 28th February
1995 to 12th May 1995. The petitioner, therefore, ordered
his dismissal from service. This order of dismissal dated 11.1.96 was
challenged by the respondent before the Labour Court by raising
dispute. The Labour Court also found that the misconduct was proved
against the respondent. The Labour Court was, however, pleased to
come to the conclusion that the order of dismissal was
disproportionate to the charges proved against the respondent and the
order of was therefore set aside. The respondent was ordered to be
reinstated in service with continuity and with 60 per cent backwages
and punishment of withholding of one increment without future effect
was ordered to be imposed.
3. In
the facts of the present case, the award of the Labour Court cannot
be sustained in its entirety. The respondent had committed
misconduct which was proved against him. Directing his reinstatement
with 60 per cent backwages was therefore not proper. The learned
advocate for the respondent, however, submits that pursuant to the
award passed by the Labour Court, the respondent was actually
reinstated in service in the year 2001 and subsequently, at his
request he was permitted to voluntarily retire from service on 31st
August 2003. He submitted that the respondent was keeping
indifferent health on account of which he had to seek early
retirement. In view of this development and the petitioner itself
has accepted the notice of retirement of the respondent, to revive
the order of dismissal would be inequitable. The respondent,
however, cannot get away without any punishment. As noted earlier,
direction for payment of 60 per cent backwages is wholly untenable
and the same is required to be set aside.
4. Accordingly,
the direction for payment of 60 per cent backwages is set aside. In
addition to setting aside the said direction, it is provided that the
respondent will be visited with penalty of withholding of two
increments with future effect. Reinstatement with continuity in
service is however maintained. The impugned award of the Labour
Court is accordingly modified. The petition is allowed to the above
extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
It is expected that the outstanding dues of the respondent be
settled expeditiously.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top