Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9259/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9259 of 2011
========================================================
CHIEF
ENGINEER(D) GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD(NOW PASCHIM GUJA & 3 -
Petitioner(s)
Versus
PRAVINBHAI
RAMJIBHAI SINDHAV & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
Ms.LILU
K BHAYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 29/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by award and order
dated 16th September 2010 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, Labour Court No.3, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.81 of 2003.
The learned Judge was pleased to partly allow the reference and order
reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages. The
learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the
respondent- workman was in the habit of remaining unauthorisedly
absent. In this regard the learned advocate invited attention of the
Court to the relevant discussion of issue no.1, in para 8A, wherein
it is mentioned that he was given notices dated 30.09.2000,
06.11.2000, 09.03.2001 and 31.03.2001. The learned Judge has rightly
considered all these notices. It was stated that action will be
taken as per Service Regulation No.113. The learned Judge has held
that if that was the case, the petitioners ought to have held
departmental inquiry, more particularly, when the respondent- workman
was served with charge sheet.
2. In
the present case, the petitioners first issued notices and thereafter
issued charge sheet, but then resorted to Service Regulation No.113,
which provides for discharge simpliciter.
3. The
fact that the petitioners after having issued charge sheet have
resorted to Service Regulation No.113, the court below has rightly
held that it was not open for the petitioners.
4. The
learned advocate for the petitioners relied upon decision of the
Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Syndicate Bank Vs.
General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another,
reported in (2000) 5 SCC 65, wherein the Hon’ble the Apex Court has
been pleased to observed and hold as under:
“Two
principles emerge from case-law: (1) principles of natural justice
and duty to act in a just, fair and reasonable manner have to be read
in the Certified Standing Orders which have statutory force. These
can be applied by the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal even
to relations between the management and workman though based on
contractual obligations; and (2) where domestic inquiry was not held
or it was vitiated for some reason the Tribunal or Court adjudicating
an industrial dispute can itself go into the question raised before
it on the basis of the evidence and other material on record.”
5. In
the considered opinion of this Court, in light of the aforesaid
facts, which are set out, the above decision will have no application
to the facts of the present case.
The
learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that virus of Service
Regulation No.113 was challenged before this Court. The learned
Single Judge held that the Regulation is ultra vires. That decision
of the learned Single Judge is under consideration in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1973 of 2004 with other cognate matters. The learned
advocate for the petitioners states that though the Letters Patent
Appeal is admitted, no stay is granted against the judgement and
order of the learned Single Judge. The learned advocate for the
petitioners submitted that therefore, the action of the petitioners
under Service Regulation No.113 cannot be found fault with. The
Court is unable to agree with that. Hence this petition is dismissed
having found no substance in it.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top