Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3486/2004 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3486 of 2004
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
RAMJIBHAI
DHARMSINHBHAI ZALARIYA - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance :
MR
RAJESH R DEWAL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR GK RATHOD for Respondent(s) :
1,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 28/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 11th
February 2003 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ)
No.289 of 1991 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to
reinstate the respondent without back wages and to stop five
increments with future effect.
2. The
respondent was serving as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation.
He was in the habit of remaining absent on duty and also committed
irregularities. Therefore departmental proceedings were initiated
which resulted in termination of the services of the respondent. The
respondent therefore raised a dispute which was numbered as Reference
(LCJ) No.289 of 1991 and the Labour Court, Jamnagar passed the award
as stated hereinabove.
3. Heard
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the
relevant documents on record. As a result of this exercise, it is
evident that the allegation against the respondent was remaining
absent from duty, which, in my opinion, do not warrant penalty of
dismissal from service. Therefore the Labour Court was fully
justified in setting aside the order of dismissal. The Labour Court
has also not granted any back wages to the respondent. Further,
looking to the seriousness of the misconduct the Labour Court has
imposed a penalty of stoppage of five increments with future effect.
This penalty is sufficient for the misconduct of the respondent and
it does not require any enhancement.
4. In
the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the petition. The
same is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to
costs.
5. The
judgement and award of the Labour Court shall be implemented within
four months from today. The respondent shall be granted the benefits
from the date of publication of the award.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
Top