Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4971/2009 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4971 of 2009
=========================================================
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANJIBHAI
K PARMAR - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
AVANI S MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
KISHOR M PAUL for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 10/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned Advocate Ms. Avani S.Mehta for petitioner and learned
Advocate Mr. Kishor M. Paul for respondent No.1.
By
filing this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India,
petitioner GSRTC has challenged order passed by Industrial Tribunal
in Approval Application No. 255 of 2006 in Reference (IT) No. 37 of
2000 dated 20th October, 2008 wherein approval
application made by petitioner has been rejected by industrial
tribunal.
Rule.
Service of Rule is waived by learned Advocate Mr. KM Paul for
respondent. In peculiar facts and circumstances of case and with
consent of learned advocates for both parties, matter is taken up
for final hearing today.
Learned
Advocate Ms.Mehta for petitioner corporation has raised contention
before this court that Exh. 10 Purshis was filed by workman
challenging departmental inquiry which is contrary to standing order
and Discipline and Appeal Procedure and, therefore, it is legal
obligation upon industrial tribunal to first decide this preliminary
objection raised by workman but instead of that, without deciding
that issue, straightway approval application is rejected.
Learned
Advocate Mr. Paul for workman has raised contention that while
deciding approval application, industrial tribunal has come to
conclusion that inquiry is vitiated and thereafter, approval
application is rejected, therefore, it is submitted by learned
Advocate Ms. Mehta that once industrial tribunal has come to
conclusion that inquiry is vitiated, then, opportunity must be given
to employer for proving misconduct or establish charge against
workman but that opportunity was not given by industrial tribunal
and, therefore present petition is filed by petitioner before this
court.
I
have considered submissions made by both learned Advocates. I have
also considered fact that industrial tribunal has, in terms, page
23, come to conclusion that departmental inquiry initiated against
workman is held to be vitiated but thereafter, no opportunity was
given to employer for proving charge against workman or establish
charge or to justify action of dismissal. See : 2009 II CLR 694 in
case of Management of M/s. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Presently known
as Hindalco Industries Ltd., Belgaum v. S. Nagaiah; M/s. Bharat Iron
Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and Ors., reported in AIR 1976 SC
98.
Therefore,
on that limited ground alone, order passed by industrial tribunal
in approval application no.255 of 2006 dated 20.10.08 is set aside
while remanding matter back to industrial tribunal, Ahmedabad to
decide approval application in accordance with law after giving
opportunity to employer to prove misconduct or establish charge or
justify dismissal by leading proper evidence before industrial
tribunal. In that process, workman concerned is also required to be
given reasonable opportunity to lead further evidence in defence. It
is clarified that decision of industrial tribunal where departmental
inquiry is vitiated has remained as it is. Now, industrial tribunal
has to give opportunity to employer against which workman is also
entitled to have opportunity and thereafter, industrial tribunal has
to decide approval application in accordance with law within three
months from date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly,
order passed by Industrial Tribunal in Approval Application NO. 20th
October, 2008 is set aside while maintaining order holding
departmental inquiry as vitiated. Present petition is allowed to
aforesaid extent. Rule is accordingly made absolute to aforesaid
extent with no order as to costs. It is made clear that this court
has not expressed any opinion on merits.
(H.K.
Rathod,J.)
Vyas
Top