Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/22162/2005 1/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22162 of 2005
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
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
NAVALSINH
M CHAVADA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MRS
FALGUNI D PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 25/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0 This
petition is directed against the judgement and award dated
30.12.2004 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference
(IT) No.19 of 1998 whereby the order of the imposition of penalty of
stoppage on two increments with future effect is set aside. The
Tribunal has imposed penalty of stoppage of one increment without
future effect upon the respondent and directed to the petitioner to
pay 50% differential amount.
2.0 The
respondent was serving with the petitioner Corporation as Conductor.
On surprise checking of checking squad of petitioner-Corporation, it
was found that the respondent had not issued ticket to one passenger
though fare was collected from him and also instigated the passengers
and not co-operated with the officers while checking his bus. In view
of such misconduct, the respondent was issued charge-sheet as the
respondent was found defaulter, misappropriation of money,
misbehaviour and negligent in discharging his duty. After holding
departmental inquiry, a punishment of stoppage of two increments
with future effect was imposed upon him. The respondent preferred
first appeal which came to be rejected. The respondent therefore
raised a dispute which was numbered as Reference (IT) No.19 of 1998
before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. The Tribunal after
adjudicating the matter, passed the award as stated hereinabove.
Hence, this petition.
3.0 Learned
advocate for the respondent has submitted that the Tribunal has
committed error inasmuch there are 26 defaults committed by the
respondent and keeping in mind the seriousness of the misconduct on
the part of the respondent, the Tribunal while exercising power under
Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the penalty should
be proportionate to the misconduct committed by the respondent.
4.0 Learned
advocate for the respondent has supported the judgment and award of
the Tribunal.
5.0 Heard
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the
relevant record. As a result of this exercise, I am of the view that
the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the 26 past
defaults on the part of the respondent. In view of such past
defaults, the punishment imposed by the Tribunal is too lenient and
not in consonance with the gravity of the misconduct. Having
considered the matter in depth, I am of the view interest of justice
would be met by restoring the order of punishment of imposition of
penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect passed by
the competent authority of the petitioner-Corporation.
6.0 Accordingly
a punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect shall
be imposed upon the respondent. The judgement and award of the Labour
Court is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent with no order as to costs. The judgement and award shall be
implemented within a period of six months from today.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
niru*
Top