IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1466 OF 1996
in
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.376 OF 1985
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION No.11064 OF 1996
***
--------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Versus
DESHA MULJI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR YS LAKHANI for Petitioner
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : THE ACTING CJ R.A.MEHTA and
MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER
Date of Order: 10/02/97
ORAL ORDER
: (Per R.A. Mehta, Actg CJ)
The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as “GSRTC” for brevity) is
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1.7.1996 of the
learned Single Judge, granting full back wages subject to
deduction of Rs.150/- per month from the date of
dismissal till the date of reinstatement of the workman.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant this
award of full back wages is not justified.
2.The workman-driver was dismissed from the
services on the alleged ground of misconduct of
negligence by which a head-on collision between two GSRTC
buses took place. In Motor Accident case this driver has
been exonerated and found ‘not negligent’ and the sole
negligence was fixed on the driver of the other bus of
GSRTC involved in the accident. In the criminal case
also he has been found not guilty. The Panchnama and
scene of the accident clearly show that the bus of the
respondent/ driver was on the extreme left of the road
and was on correct side of the road, whereas the other
bus had gone on the wrong side and dashed against the bus
driven by the respondent.
3.In view of this evidence the learned Single Judge
came to the conclusion that the Inquiry Officer of the
Labour Court was utterly wrong in finding the driver/
respondent herein guilty of negligence.
4.The Labour Court had, however, directed
reinstatement of the respondent herein, but without back
wages. The learned Single Judge has awarded back wages.
However, on the basis of evidence on record that the
respondent/ driver was earning Rs.150/- per month, the
said amount is directed to be deducted and the balance
amount of back wages was directed to be paid.
5.When the workman has been found not to have
committed any misconduct, there is no question of any
punishment. On the question of back wages, only the said
amount of Rs.150/- per month can be deducted about which
there is no evidence of his having gainfully employed.
In the present case, the only evidence is the admission
made by the respondent/ workman himself about his
earning. There is no other evidence. Therefore, on the
basis of the evidence, the learned Single Judge has
rightly passed the order. No interference is called
for. Hence the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
6.No orders on Civil Application.
(R.A. Mehta, Actg CJ)
10th February 1997( C.K. Thakker, J. )
karim*