Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/18128/2005 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18128 of 2005
==============================================================
ADAMBHAI
D.CHHUVARA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER GSRTC - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JS BRAHMBHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 07/09/2005
ORAL
ORDER
In
the present petition, the petitioner workman has challenged the
legality of the award dated 21st March, 2005 passed by
the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad by which the Reference of the
petitioner being Reference(I.T.) No. 185/1998 came to be rejected.
The
petitioner was engaged as a Driver by the respondent- Gujarat State
Road Transport Corporation. For an incident which took place on 2nd
December, 1994, in which it was found that the petitioner had caused
damage to the Bus and had instead of getting the Bus repaired or
contacting the Depo Manager nearby, he had continued to drive the
Bus causing damage. Upon the conclusion of the departmental inquiry,
the respondent imposed the punishment of withholding of increment
for a period of one year with future effect. The petitioner
challenged the penalty before the Industrial Tribunal. In the
impugned award, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that
the petitioner himself had admitted the charge and had showed regret
for his conduct. For the proved misconduct, the employer was
therefore, pleased to impose a punishment of withholding one
increment for the period of one year. That the Industrial Tribunal
found no reason to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The
conclusions of the Industrial Tribunal being eminently just, call
for no interference in exercise of power under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India. The misconduct was proved against the
petitioner. The punishment was not disproportionate and, therefore,
rightly not interfered with by the Industrial Tribunal. The petition
is therefore, rejected.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top