Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2200/2006 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2200 of 2006
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
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 ?
=========================================
S.T.
CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SECRETARY
- Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MS
SEJAL K MANDAVIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR GK RATHOD for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
MUKESH H RATHOD for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 01/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
the petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has prayed
for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting
aside the impugned order dated 16/04/2005 passed by the industrial
tribunal in Reference (I.T.) No. 355/2002 by which the industrial
tribunal has partly allowed the reference and interfered with the
order of punishment imposed by the first appellate authority of
imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect
and substituting it to stoppage of one increment without future
effect.
2. On
conclusion of departmental inquiry against the petitioner for non
issuance of ticket, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of
recovering only Rs. 3/- and the reviewing authority interfered with
the said order of punishment and passed an order of imposing
punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect, which
also came to be interfered with by the Industrial Tribunal. The
industrial tribunal vide impugned judgement and order substituted it
to stoppage of one increment without future effect.
3. Heard
Ms. Sejal Mandaviya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Shri Mukesh Rathod, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent and considering the impugned award, it
appears that the learned Industrial Tribunal has exercised the powers
under Section 11(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act by substituting
the order of punishment by the first appellate authority. Considering
the fact that the charge and misconduct of non issuance of ticket
came to be established and proved and when the reviewing authority
imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with future
effect, the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the same
in exercise of powers under Section 11(a) of the Industrial Disputes
Act.
4. Under
the circumstances, the impugned judgement and award passed by the
Industrial Tribunal cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed
and set aside. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
hereinabove, the present petition succeeds and the order dated
16/04/2005 passed in Reference (I.T.) No. 355/2002 is hereby quashed
and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No
cost.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top