Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/25340/2006 1/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 25340 of 2006
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
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 ?
=========================================================
DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KAPILDEVSING
KESHARNATHSING THAKUR - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SEJAL K MANDAVIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR LN MEDIPALLY for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 28/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0 By
way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for
quashing and setting aside the judgment and award dated 18.02.2006
passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surat in Reference
(L.C.S.) No. 417 of 2005 whereby the Reference was partly allowed
and the dismissal order passed
by the Corporation on 29.03.2004 has been quashed and set aside. The
petitioner-Corporation was directed to reinstate the
respondent-workman with continuity of service and without backwages.
2.0 The
case of the petitioner is that the respondent- Conductor was working
with petitioner-Corporation. On 27.06.2003, on a surprise checking,
it was found that three tickets have been reissued. The respondent
was issued charge-sheet and after departmental inquiry, he was
dismissed from service on 29.03.2004. The respondent, therefore,
raised a dispute before the Labour Court by way of Reference (L.C.S.)
No. 417 of 2005, wherein the Labour Court, Surat has passed the award
as stated hereinabove which is challenged in the present petition.
3.0 Heard
learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused
the documents on record. As a result of this exercise, looking to
the misconduct, I am of the view that such a misconduct would not
warrant dismissal of the employee from service. Therefore, the Labour
Court was justified in reinstating the respondent.
4.0 However,
it is found that there are as many as 88 defaults
committed by the respondent. It appears that the Labour
Court has not considered the evidence produced on record in respect
of these defaults. This is a serious misconduct on the part of the
respondent. The respondent is an employee of public sector and he is
dealing with public money. Misuse of public money is a serious
conduct. The Labour Court while exercising power 11(A) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has not imposed any penalty on the
respondent. Therefore, if appropriate punishment is not imposed upon
the respondent, it would imply that any one can commit such type of
misconduct and can get away without adequate penalty. I am of the
view that imposition of penalty of stoppage of five increments with
future effect would meet the ends of justice.
5.0 In
the premises aforesaid, a penalty of stoppage of five increments
with future effect shall be imposed upon the respondent. The
judgement and award of the Labour Court is modified to the aforesaid
extent. The award shall be implemented within a period of four
months from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as
to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
niru*
Top