Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8065/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8065 of 2008
=========================================================
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DANSANGBHAI
BHAGWANBHAI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
AVANI S MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 19/06/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate Ms.A.S.Mehta for the petitioner.
2. In
the present petition, the petitioner Corporation has challenged the
award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT)
No.119 of 1999 dated 9.8.2007. The Industrial Tribunal has set aside
the punishment order of stoppage of six increments with permanent
effect dated 31.7.1996, without giving any arrears to the respondent
workman but, releasing six increments with a direction to fix the pay
accordingly of the respondent workman.
3. Learned
advocate Ms.Mehta appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that
the Industrial Tribunal has committed gross error in granting the
relief in favour of respondent workman. She submitted that
departmental inquiry was properly conducted by the Corporation and
reasonable opportunity was given to the workman. Thereafter, finding
was recorded which was based on legal evidence and therefore, looking
to the gravity of misconduct, a proportionate punishment was imposed
by the Corporation and for that, interference from Tribunal does not
arise. The decision in criminal case is not binding to the
departmental authority and not applicable and therefore, the Tribunal
has committed gross error in considering the decision of criminal
case and accordingly, punishment has wrongly been set aside. She also
submitted that there was a negligence on the part of the respondent
driver while working as a driver on a route from Lavachha-Surat vaya
Pijarat where one Kashiben, old lady, was died. Therefore, she
submitted that interference by this Court is required.
4. I
have considered the submissions made by learned advocate Ms.Mehta and
also perused the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar.
The Industrial Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts on record
which are undisputed. In departmental inquiry, reporter was not
examined by Corporation and only the driver was examined in a form of
question ? answer. Ultimately, considering the reply from the
driver, the decision is taken by the inquiry officer but, that was
based on presumption. There is no concrete and direct evidence led in
departmental inquiry being an eye witness. Therefore, the
Tribunal has come to the conclusion that in criminal case of accident
against the driver where eye witness was examined and according to
eye witness, bus was slow because of rainy season and all of a
sudden, buffalo has entered on the road and that is how, an old lady
Kashiben dashed with the bus on conductor side and rear wheel of the
bus and she died in accident. The Tribunal has come to the
conclusion that in criminal case, when eye witness evidence was
believed, and it was not the negligence on the part of the driver.
Similarly, in departmental inquiry, no one was examined on behalf of
corporation, except the driver. On that basis, the finding is given
which is baseless and perverse and not based upon legal evidence and
on that ground, the Tribunal has set aside the punishment. For that,
according to my opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error
which requires interference by this Court. Because in absence of eye
witness or examination of the reporter in departmental inquiry,
charge levelled against the workman cannot be proved and other
evidence cannot be considered to be a legal evidence. The whole
inquiry report was based upon presumption and assumption. There was
no direct and concrete evidence was led by Corporation in
departmental inquiry. Therefore, the finding given by Industrial
Tribunal is perfectly justified for setting aside the punishment
dated 31.7.1996 and Corporation has not put in financial loss because
no arrears is required to be paid by Corporation to the concerned
workman.
5. Therefore,
according to my opinion, the Tribunal has passed a balanced and
equitable award. For that, the Tribunal has not committed any error
which requires interference by this Court while exercising the power
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no
substance in the present petition. Accordingly, present petition is
dismissed.
(H.K.Rathod,J.)
(vipul)
Top