Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3915/2004 1/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3915 of 2004
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 G.S.R.T.C. - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANIBHAI
SOMABHAI PATEL - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SEJAL K MANDAVIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR VIJAY N RAVAL for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 28/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0 This
petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 31.07.2002
passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Labour Court, Vadodara in
Reference (LCV) No. 1406 of 1998 whereby the punishment of dismissal
was substituted to stoppage of one increment for one year and 50%
backwages with continuity of service .
2.0 The
respondent was serving as a Driver with the Corporation. On
23.04.1994, he remained unauthorizedly absent without informing the
Corporation regarding his absence or got sanctioned his leave. The
Corporation issued notice to the respondent to resume his duty but he
did not turn up. Hence, after issuing charge-sheet and conducting
departmental inquiry, he was dismissed from service on 05.06.1995.
The respondent therefore raised a dispute before the Special Labour
Court, Vadodara by way of Reference (LCV) No. 1406 of 1998 and the
Special Labour Court, Vadodara passed the award as stated
hereinabove.
3.0 When
the matter was admitted, interim-relief was granted on condition that
the petitioner deposits the amount of Rs. 5000/- with this Court for
compensating the delay caused in preferring the petition.
4.0 Heard
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the
relevant documents on record. It is found that respondent has already
retired from the service on 31.03.1999. Hence, there is no question
to reinstate the respondent. The allegations against the respondent
was remaining absent from duty, which in my opinion, do not warrant
penalty of dismissal from service. There were as many as 18 defaults
on the part of the respondent which fact was not considered by the
Labour Court and in spite of this fact, the Labour Court has taken a
lenient view by imposing a minor penalty. However, having considered
the overall facts and circumstances I am of the view that interest of
justice would be met by imposing a penalty of stoppage of one
increment with future effect. Further, with regard to issue of 50%
backwages and continuity of service awarded by the Labour Court, it
is found that the Labour Court has not assigned any reasons while
awarding 50% backwages to the respondent.
5.0 In
the premises aforesaid, the judgemant and award qua reinstatement and
backwages is quashed and set aside. A penalty of stoppage of one
increment 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 four
months from today. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
6.0 The
ensuing monetary benefits will be released by the petitioner within a
period of four months from today.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
niru*
Top