Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13352/2010 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13352 of 2010
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 ?
=========================================
DALPATBHAI
S ZALA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
S
T CORPORATION - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR VA
MANSURI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 12/10/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order
quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated
23.07.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN)
No.46/1999, by which the Labour Court has rejected/dismissed the said
reference.
2. A
departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner for the
charge and misconduct of not issuing ticket to one passenger and
though fare was collected but the ticket was not issued to one
passenger. Despite the fact that opportunities were given to the
petitioner, he did not participated in the inquiry and even he did
not file reply to the charge-sheet. That thereafter the inquiry
officer held that the charge and misconduct alleged against the
petitioner came to be proved. That thereafter show cause notice was
issued by the Disciplinary Authority, which could not be served upon
the petitioner as he was not available. It is to be noted that even
petitioner remained absent without leave at the time when the
departmental inquiry was going on and the show cause notice was
issued and the whereabouts of the petitioner were not known to the
Corporation. That thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed an
order dismissing the petitioner from service. That without
preferring any statutory appeals, straightway petitioner raised
industrial dispute challenging his termination/dismissal which was
referred to the Labour Court, Nadiad, which was numbered as Reference
(LCN) No.46/1999 and the Labour Court by impugned judgment and award
has dismissed/rejected the said reference. Hence, petitioner has
preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India challenging the aforesaid judgment and
award passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad.
3. Shri
Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
vehemently submitted that as petitioner could not defend the case
properly, it is requested to remand the matter to the Labour Court.
It is submitted that even otherwise, out of four past misconducts,
three were with respect to unauthorized absence and this was the
first misconduct committed by the petitioner and therefore, the
Labour Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under Section
11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and ought to have interfered
with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
4. Having
heard Shri Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and considering the impugned judgment and award, at the
outset it is required to be noted that as such there is a delay of
three years in preferring the present Special Civil Application,
which is not properly explained. Even otherwise on merits also,
petitioner has no case. It is to be noted that petitioner did not
participate in the departmental inquiry and even did not submit his
reply to the charge-sheet. That thereafter the charge and misconduct
alleged against the petitioner of not issuing ticket to one passenger
and not issuing ticket to one another passenger though the fare was
collected, came to be proved. Thereafter the show cause notice was
sought to be served upon the petitioner, however, he could not be
served as he was neither available at his residence nor resumed the
duty and at the relevant time, he was again absent from duty without
leave. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the
charge and misconduct alleged against the petitioner came to be
proved, it cannot said that the Disciplinary Authority had committed
any illegality in dismissing the petitioner from service. It is to
be noted that in fact petitioner did not prefer the departmental
appeals and straightway raised an industrial dispute. Considering
the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, no case
is made out to interfere with the same in exercise of powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. In
view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no
substance in the petition, which deserves to be dismissed and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
(M.R.
Shah, J.)
*menon
Top