Gujarat High Court High Court

Special Civil Application No. … vs Unknown on 2 August, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Special Civil Application No. … vs Unknown on 2 August, 2011
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD



     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5834 of 2000




     For Approval and Signature:



              Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI


     ============================================================

1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement?

4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO

————————————————————–
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
BABULAL MAVJI TANK

————————————————————–
Appearance:

1. Special Civil Application No. 5834 of 2000
MR DHARMENDU PANDYA for MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Petitioner
MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Respondent

————————————————————–

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI

Date of decision: 10/01/2002

ORAL JUDGEMENT

1.The present petition is filed by the Gujarat
State Road Transport Corporation challenging the
judgement and award dated 20th October, 1999 passed by
the Labour Court, Rajkot, in Reference (LCR) No. 47 of
1996, whereby the Reference filed by the respondent
workman is allowed by quashing and setting aside the
order of dismissal and he is ordered to be reinstated on
his original post without back wages, but with continuity
of service and with penalty of stoppage of one increment
with future effect.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the
respondent-workman was serving as a conductor for last 23
years and on 23rd June, 1993, while he was on duty on
Bhilkha-Rameshwar route, his bus was checked and he was
found to have not issued tickets to a group of three
passengers despite of collecting fare from them. The
respondent-workman was chargesheeted and after holding
him guilty, an order dated 19th July, 1994 was passed
dismissing him from service. It was this order, which
was the subject matter of the aforesaid Reference. The
the Labour Court ordered reinstatement without back
wages, but with continuity of service and the penalty of
stoppage of one increment with future effect was
substituted for the order of dismissal.

3.It is surprising that the Labour Court, though,
recording in its judgement and award that by Exh. 26,
the petitioner-Corporation has produced the default
record sheet, which contains as many as 44 defaults, has
not taken the same into consideration. It is important
to note that out of these 44 defaults, earlier at two
occasions, penalty of dismissal was imposed. It is third
instance of dismissal, still the Labour Court, Rajkot,
having taken a lenient view, has passed the aforesaid
award.

4.Mr. Dharmendu Pandya for Mr. Ashish Dagli,
learned Advocate for the petitioner-Corporation, relied
upon a judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of
Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale
Stores Ltd.) & Ors. vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara
Sangha & others
, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 517 and also a
judgement of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5630 of
2000 in the matter between Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Prakash Ganesh Tankaria. Mr. Pandya

relied upon the observations made by the Apex Court in
Janatha Bazar’s case (supra) in paragraph 8 of this
judgement, which reads as under :

“8.In case of proved misappropriation, in
our view, there is no question of considering
past record. It is the discretion of the
employer to consider the same in appropriate
cases, but the Labour Court cannot substitute the
penalty imposed by the employer in such cases.”

5.The learned Advocate also relied upon the
judgement of the Apex Court in the matter between
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B.S.
Hulli Katti,
reported at 2001 (2) SCC 574.

6.In view of the aforesaid judgements of the Apex
Court, this petition is required to be allowed and the
same is allowed. The judgement and award dated 20th
October, 1999 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot, is
quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order
as to costs.

(Ravi R. Tripathi, J.)
kamlesh*