JUDGMENT
N.G. Nandi, J.
1. This matter was first listed on 22nd June 2001. On that day none appeared for respondent No. 1. Today also none is present, despite matter called out thrice, for respondent No. 1, Mr. L. R. Pujari, learned A.G.P., for respondent No. 2.
2. In this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been challenging the order dated 11-1-1988 passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (L.C.N.) No. 157 of 1984 directing reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with 80% back wages and continunity of service. The said order also provides for the stoppage of two increments.
3. Shankerbhai Panabhai Bhoi (Respondent No. 1) was serving with Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (“G.S.R.T.C.” for the short) as a Conductor; that the said employee remained unauthorisedly absent from 13-12-1978 to 16-1-1979 for which the employee was first served with show-cause notice, and thereafter, served with the charge-sheet. No reply either to the show cause or charge-sheet is said to have been filed. Thereafter regular departmental inquiry was initiated against the employee. In the departmental proceedings also the employee did not remain present and allowed the inquiry proceedings to proceed ex-parte. The inquiry proceedings resulted into the dismissal of the employee from service. There is nothing to suggest on record that against the dismissal order in the inquiry proceedings the employee preferred any departmental appeal. Under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, dispute came to be raised as regards the dismissal of the employee leading to the filing of the Reference under I. D. Act. In the said Reference, the Labour Court passed the impugned order/award dated 11-11-1998 which is the subject-matter of this writ petition.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Raval, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order reinstating the petitioner in service and directing payment of 80% backwages is illegal and could not have been passed looking to the facts, namely gross misconduct of the respondent employee. It is stated that the respondent has been reinstated in service and he has been working with the petitioner-Corporation; that no back-wages should have been ordered inasmuch as it is the public money from which backwages would be required to be paid and that the passengers were put to inconvenience on account of the re-scheduling of the bus-routes required to be done by the petitioner-Corporation on account of misconduct of the petitioner.
5. It is suggested that even in the departmental inquiry, the respondent delinquent did not remain present nor did he give any explanation as to why he remained absent without prior intimation to the petitioner-Corporation. The petitioner vide Exh. B has filed a statement in a tabular form suggesting the previous misconduct on various occasions. The petitioner is stated to have committed misconduct on 41 occasions as suggested from Exh. B.
6. Mr. Hardik Raval, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Maganbhai L. Chauhan v. Divisional Controller, G.S.R.T.C., 1999 (1) GLH 527 [D.B.], and contended that the employee connected with public services cannot be treated leniently especially when in the inquiry proceedings’ the misconduct is proved.
7. In the instant case, the respondent has been reinstated in service by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order. I am not inclined to interfere with the reinstatement part of the order/award since disturbing the reinstatement would economically suffocate the family members of the respondent and the innocent family members would be the sufferers for no fault of theirs.
8. As far as the relief of 80% back-wages granted under the impugned order/award is concerned, the misconduct has been proved in the departmental proceedings which were allowed to go ex-parte by the petitioner. There is no explanation coming forth from the respondent-employee as to what prevented him from reporting to the duty for a period spanning over one month and one week. Generally, reinstatement would be followed by the back-wages, but the grant of and the extent thereof would depend upon the facts of each case. As pointed out above in the instant case, the conduct of the respondent employee is eloquent inasmuch as he did not reply the show-cause notice and the charge-sheet nor did he bother to remain present in the departmental inquiry and allowed the same to proceed ex-parte. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 30th June, 1979 pursuant to the order passed in the departmental proceedings and the respondent-employee moved the State Government for reference under See. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act in the year 1984. This would suggest that for more than 41/2 years the respondent-employee sat quiet and did not move in the matter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances aforestated, the order as regards the grant of back wages deserves to be set aside.
9. In the result, the impugned order dated 11-1-1988 in Reference (L.C.N.) No. 157 of 1984 passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad, is set aside to the extent it awards/grants 80% of back-wages to respondent No. 1 whereas rest of the impugned order does not call for any interference. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute to the above extent. No orders as to cost.