Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/167/2001 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 167 of 2001
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
==============================================================
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
N
K PRAJAPATI - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARDIK C RAWAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR GK RATHOD for Respondent(s) :
1,
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 07/09/2005
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. In
the present petition, the petitioner-State Road Transport Corporation
has challenged the legality of the award dated 31st
January, 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra.
2. Respondent-workman
was employed as a conductor by the petitioner-corporation. On 27th
July, 1995 in bus in which the respondent was discharging his duties
as a conductor was checked by the Checking Squad and it was found
that the respondent had collected fare from three passengers but had
not issued tickets. Upon the conclusion of the departmental inquiry
the petitioner ordered dismissal of respondent from service. The
respondent challenged the punishment before the Labour Court by
raising a dispute. The Labour Court in its impugned award came to
the conclusion that there was no dishonest intention on the part of
the respondent in not issuing the tickets. The Labour Court however,
concluded that the respondent erred in not issuing the tickets and to
that extent he had committed misconduct. In the result, the Labour
Court was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal. The workman
was ordered to be reinstated in service without back wages and
punishment of withholding of two increments permanently was ordered
to be imposed on him.
3. While
admitting the petition, this Court had not granted stay against
reinstatement of the workman. The petitioner employer, therefore,
subject to outcome of the petition reinstated the respondent.
Learned advocate Shri Raval appearing for the petitioner submits that
having been worked from the year 2001 upon reinstatement the
respondent had also reached the age of superannuation and is made to
retire w.e.f. 30th April, 2005.
4. In
so far as the conclusion of the Labour Court regarding the
involvement of the respondent is concerned, I am unable to agree with
the same. In the departmental inquiry through cogent evidence, it
was held that the respondent though had collected fare from three
passengers he had not issued tickets to them. The bus was checked
after considerable distance after the passengers boarded the bus.
Therefore there was no excuse on the part of the respondent in not
issuing the tickets. Ordinarily, therefore, this Court would have
been inclined to restore the punishment imposed by the employer. In
the present case, however, there are certain mitigating
circumstances. As recorded earlier the respondent was reinstated
pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court. Since then he had
already crossed the age of superannuation. The Labour Court has
recorded that this is the first misconduct of the respondent. There
is no contrary material available on record to disregard this
observation of the Labour Court. The Labour Court in its direction
had provided for withholding of entire back wages and had ordered
imposition of punishment of withholding of two increments with future
effect. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I find it
inequitable in facts of the present case to permit the petitioner to
have resort to the original penalty of dismissing the respondent from
service. The respondent having committed misconduct can also not be
allowed to go scot free. In facts of the present case, therefore, I
find that ends of justice would be served if the respondent is
ordered to be visited with the penalty of withholding of four
increments with future effect instead of two as ordered by the Labour
Court. The award of the Labour Court is modified accordingly. Now
that the litigation with respect to the dismissal of the respondent
has come to an end, it is expected that the petitioner shall release
the post retiral dues of the respondent after implementing the
penalty as directed in this order. Petition is allowed to the above
extent. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
smita/
Top