Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8409/2003 2/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8409 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
==============================================
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
Versus
G
M KHAN THRO. ST WORK UNON - Respondent
==============================================
Appearance :
MS
MONALI H BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1,
==============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 16/10/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Though
served, no body has appeared on behalf of the respondent-workman.
2. The
petitioner-GSRTC, has preferred this petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 31/05/2002
passed by the Industrial Court, Surat in Reference (I.T.) No.46 of
1991, quashing and setting aside the order of punishment dated
18/12/1987 and the appellate authority’s order thereon as illegal and
ordered payment of consequential benefits with cost of Rs.2,000/-.
3. The
facts in brief deserves to be set out as under:
4. The
respondent-driver in S.T. Corporation received a charge-sheet on
17/10/1987 containing imputation that on 04/09/1987 due to his
negligence in driving, accident occurred wherein a pedestrian had
died on the spot and a scooter rider was seriously injured. On
account of such fatal accident occurred for his negligence, the S.T.
Corporation had to sustain severe damages. After the inquiry,
punishment came to be imposed of five stage reduction from basic pay
of Rs.732/- to Rs.573/-. This punishment order was passed on
18/10/1987 which was assailed in departmental appeal wherein the
first appellate authority confirmed the same and the said order was
further assailed in second departmental appeal wherein the second
appellate authority reduced it from five stage reduction to that of
two stage only. This order was challenged by raising industrial
dispute which came to be referred to competent Industrial Court which
was registered as Reference (I.T.) No.46 of 1991 and the learned
Industrial Court, Surat has quashed and set aside the order impugned
as stated herein above under its award dated 31/05/2002, which has
been assailed in the present petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
5. Ms.Bhatt,
learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner ? S.T. Corporation
submitted that even as such punishment order could not have been said
to be improper looking to the way accident occurred. The Industrial
Court ought not to have, therefore, recorded finding contrary to the
evidence on record. The occurring of accident cannot always be
proved by only eye-witnesses. In absence of eye-witnesses also,
there could be a strong evidence available on record leading to the
establishment of driver’s negligence and dereliction in duty. In
view of this, the finding of the Industrial Court being perverse, the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside. She further contended that
for initiating departmental proceedings, the competent authority has
to come to the tentative conclusion and formed a prima-facie opinion
that can never be termed to be biased or pre-decision on his part so
as to hold the proceedings as vitiated. She submitted that in view
of this, the award deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. This
Court is of the considered view that the Industrial Court has
committed error apparent on the face of the record in holding that
the inquiry was biased. It deserves to be noted that the workman, as
could be seen from the recording in paragraph ? 6 of the award has
given up his challenge to the validity and legality of inquiry and
confined his challenge only to findings being perverse. In light of
this, giving up of challenge, it was not proper for the Industrial
Court to go into the aspect with regard to vitiation of inquiry.
As could be seen from the award, the Court has heavily dealt with
that aspect and recorded its finding which has actually gone into
persuading the Court in quashing the order of punishment. The
Court’s finding, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
The finding are based on erroneous appreciation of provisions of law
as well as the fact which has actually resulted into serious
prejudice to the Corporation.
7. In
that view of the matter, this petition deserves to be allowed and the
award impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly
the impugned award is quashed and set aside. The petition is
allowed. Rule made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
sompura
Top