Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2300/2004 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2300 of 2004
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2302 of 2004
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2340 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================================
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
KESRISINH
MANGALBHAI PARMAR - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
: S.C.A. Nos.2300, 2302 and 2340 of 2004
MS
ROOPAL R PATEL for
GSRTC - Petitioner
RULE SERVED for respective Respondent
Workman.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 29/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
As
common question of law and facts arise in this group of
petition, they are being disposed of by this common judgement and
order.
In
all these petitions, the common petitioner Gujarat State Road
Transport Corporation has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or
direction quashing and setting aside the impugned judgement and
awards dtd.21/12/2002, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in
Reference (ITN) Nos.33 of 1998, 37 of 1998 and 9 of 1998,
respectively, by which the Industrial Tribunal has quashed and set
aside the order of punishment withholding 3 increments without
future effect, imposed by the disciplinary authority and allowed the
respective reference. That departmental inquiries were initiated
against the respective workman for temporary misappropriation,
alleging inter-alia that each workman took Rs.9000=00 (Rupees Nine
Thousand only) by way of advance travelling allowance and after
returning, they were supposed to submit T.A. Bill and deposit the
balance amount which was not utilised / spent. In the departmental
inquiry the respective workman admitted the default, however, their
contention was that they were not award about the rules of returning
the amount. Having found the charge and misconduct, the disciplinary
authority imposed punishment of withholding of three increments
without future effect. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
orders passed by the disciplinary authority in imposing the
punishment of withholding three increments without future effect,
the respective respondent – workman raised respective industrial
disputes which were referred to the Industrial Tribunal being
Reference (ITN) No.33, 37 and 9 of 1998 and by the impugned
judgement and awards the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad allowed all the
aforesaid references and quashed and set aside the respective
orders passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of
withholding 3 increments without future effect.
Though
served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents workmen.
Ms.Roopal
Patel, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioner GSRTC
has vehemently submitted that hen the respective workman admitted
their default of not submitting TA Bill and not depositing the
balance amount which was not spent, the Industrial Tribunal has
materially erred in interfering the order of punishment passed by
the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of withholding of 3
increments without future effect. She has relied upon the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Orissa and Others, Versus Kshetrabasi Mohanti and Others,
reported in (1997) 11 SCC 664 in support of her submission
that as held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case of temporary
misappropriation, Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the
order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority.
Submitting accordingly, it is requested to allow all the petitions.
Having
heard Ms.Roopal Patel, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
GSRTC and considering the impugned judgement and awards passed by
the tribunal and considering the fact that the charge and misconduct
of temporary misappropriation and not submitting T.A. Bill and not
depositing the balance amount of Travelling Allowance which was not
spent/utilised have been proved, and when the punishment of
withholding of 3 increments that too without future effect was
imposed, it appears that the learned Tribunal has committed an
error in interfering with the punishment and allowing the said
references and quashing and setting aside the orders of punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority, as the case of temporary
misappropriation was already established and proved. When the
concerned workmen took advance of travelling allowance and was aware
about the rule of obtaining travelling allowance in advance, it is
not believable that they were not aware about the rule of depositing
the balance amount on returning from the journey.
In
view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these
petitions succeed. The impugned judgement and awards
dtd.21/12/2002, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in
Reference (ITN) Nos.33 of 1998, 37 of 1998 and 9 of 1998,
respectively, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs.
[M.R.
SHAH, J.]
rafik
Top