Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/887/2003 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 887 of 2003
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 888 of 2003
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 889 of 2003
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 890 of 2003
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 892 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Petitioner(s)
Versus
BABULAL
MOHANLAL VYAS – Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SANGVI for MR ASHISH M DAGLI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MUKESH RATHOD for MR GK RATHOD for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 18/08/2010
ORAL
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. As
common questions on law and facts are involved in this group of
petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. By
way of these petitions, the petitioner – Corporation has prayed
to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 05.12.2002 passed by
the Industrial Tribunal in Complaint [IT] Nos. 207/2001 to 211/2001 &
213/2001, whereby the Industrial Tribunal has directed the petitioner
Corporation to retained the respondent workmen on the post of
Assistant Traffic Inspector.
3. The
short facts of the case are that the respondent workmen at the
relevant time were working on the post of Conductor. Thereafter they
were promoted to the post of Traffic Controller. The main grievance
of the respondent workmen is that the petitioner – Corporation,
after promoting them to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector [ATI]
as per the seniority list, reverted them to the post of Conductor
without issuing any notice of change. Being aggrieved by the said
action of the petitioner, the respondent-workmen raised a dispute,
which was ultimately referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
Pending references, the respondent workmen u/s. 33A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, preferred Complaint being Complaint [IT] Nos. 207/2001
to 211/2001 & 213/2001 before the Industrial Tribunal. Before the
Industrial Tribunal, both the parties adduced evidence and after
appreciating the material produced before it, the Industrial Tribunal
allowed the said complaints with the aforesaid directions. Hence,
these petitions.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workmen were
given ad hoc promotions to the post of ATI, as per the
seniority list. It appears that the respondent workmen had not passed
the requisite departmental examination for being promoted to the
post of ATI and since other qualified persons were available, the
respondent-workmen were reverted to their original post. The said
promotion was on ad hoc basis and as a stop gap arrangement.
Therefore, the respondent workmen do not have any right over the said
post.
5. Considering
the fact that the respondent-workmen had not cleared the requisite
departmental examination for being promoted to the post of ATI, they
are not entitled to get promotion on the said post. The Industrial
Tribunal has committed serious error in appreciating the evidence on
record in its true perspective. Hence, the conclusion reached by the
Industrial Tribunal is unjust and improper and therefore, the
impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
6. In
the result, the petitions are allowed. The impugned award award dated
05.12.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Complaint [IT] Nos.
207/2001 to 211/2001 & 213/2001, is quashed and set aside. Rule
is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top