Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3024/2007 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3024 of 2007
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
NARBHERAM
B GARVA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARDIK C RAWAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR KISHOR M PAUL for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 25/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed to quash
and set aside the judgment and award 09th January 2006
passed by the Labour Court, Gandhidham-Kuchchh in Reference (LCG)
No.62 of 1999, whereby the Labour Court set aside the punishment
imposed by the petitioner-Corporation.
The
facts in brief are that the respondent-Conductor was chargesheeted
for disciplinary proceedings, where the respondent was allegedly
found to have committed certain irregularities while remain absent.
Ultimately, the disciplinary authority dismissed the respondent from
service.
Against
the said order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute, which
was referred to the Labour Court, Gandhidham. The Labour Court,
after hearing both the sides, allowed the reference partly by way of
the impugned award. Hence, this petition.
Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The respondent was found guilty of serious irregularity /
misconduct on Twenty-Eight (28) different occasions in the past. Of
these defaults, many defaults related to incidents of similar
nature. In spite of being found guilty of similar defaults in the
past, the respondent did not improve his behaviour and continued to
commit such misconduct, which is highly unbecoming of a public
servant.
Looking
to the facts of the case and the past record of the respondent, I am
of the opinion that the Labour Court ought not to have completely
set aside the order of dismissal, as it would amount to granting
premium to a wrong-doer. In my opinion, if the penalty of stoppage
of Five (5) Increments with future effect is imposed on the
respondent, the same would meet with the ends of justice. Orders
accordingly. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. The
order passed by the Labour Court granting backwages to the
respondent is quashed and set aside since the Labour Court has no
powers under Section 11(A) of the Act to grant any backwages. The
petitioner is directed to reinstate the respondent on or before 01st
October 2010. The respondent be granted the other ensuing benefits
within a period of six months from today. The petition
stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the above
extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top