Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 362 (GUJ)

GORDHANBHAI C. PARMAR v. IVISIONAL CONTROLLER

2001-06-15

B.C.PATEL

body2001
B. C. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) AGAINST the award made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Baroda in Reference (L. C. V.) No. 633 of 1985 (Old No. 260 of 1982) dismissing the reference on 24/02/1988, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner. ( 2 ) FROM the award at exh. 20, it appears that the respondent-workman was working as a conductor with the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the `employer) in Makarpura City Depot of Baroda Division. He remained absent from 01/12/1979 to 27/12/1979 and he did not care to submit the report for leave. He joined the duty on 30/12/1979 and submitted leave report accompanied by a medical certificate. As stated by the workman, thereafter, his health did not improve and he was required to remain absent for a longer period. He further stated in his statement that as and when he reports for duty, he will submit leave report and medical certificate. For remaining absent without leave, a chargesheet was issued and departmental proceedings were initiated, but, he did not remain present. Ultimately, on 26/03/1980, an ex-parte order was passed by the employer. ( 3 ) AGAINST this order, an industrial dispute was raised. In reply thereto, vide exh. 6, while denying the averments made in the statement of the workman, it was pointed out that on account of remaining absent without leave report and sanction, administrative difficulties arose. Before the Court, learned advocate appearing for the employer-corporation submitted that good conduct is expected from the person who is discharging public duties. He further submitted that the person in the public services must discharge his duties with absolute devotion, diligence, integrity, honesty and discipline. If these things are not preserved, the public at large would suffer. IT was pointed out that the reason or excuse of sickness for remaining absent is false. The workman was in habit of remaining absent. Even before the Labour Court, the workman did not remain present continuously on eight occasions, therefore, the Labour Court was of the view that the workman is not interested in the proceedings and proceedings were terminated on 20/10/1984. Thereafter, on restoration application, accepting the statement made by the advocate appearing for the workman, file was restored and number was given as Reference No. 633 of 1985. ( 4 ) THE Labour Court has examined the relevant material placed before it. Thereafter, on restoration application, accepting the statement made by the advocate appearing for the workman, file was restored and number was given as Reference No. 633 of 1985. ( 4 ) THE Labour Court has examined the relevant material placed before it. Vide exh. 17, the workman has not challenged the legality and propriety of the proceedings initiated against him. The workman, in his evidence at exhibit 18 on oath, has stated that as he was sick, he could not report for duty from 01/12/1979 to 27/12/1979. On resuming, he submitted report with medical certificate issued by one Dr. A. C. Bhatt on 30/12/1979. Thereafter, from 08/01/1980 to 25/01/1980, he remained absent under the pretext that his wife was to be operated. The workman admitted in his evidence that in past also for remaining absent, he was dismissed from the service. Further on preferring an appeal, he was taken back in the service. He was specifically asked for producing evidence in connection with delivery of his wife or operation performed on her person. He has stated that if he has any evidence, he will produce the same. But, he has not produced any such evidence. He has admitted that his father has agricultural land and he is helping him in agricultural operations. ( 5 ) THE Labour Court, considering the evidence, has found that the workman has not given satisfactory explanation with regard to his absent. His evidence is not acceptable as he is stating different stories. In the statement, he has disclosed the reason that he could not remain present because he was not well. But, before the Court, he has stated on oath that he could not remain present as his wife was required to be operated after delivery. Thus, he is changing his version. The Labour Court has found that the workman is trying to find out excuses and he is trying to defend himself by rendering false reasons. The Labour Court has found from the material that the workman is not serious in discharging his duties and he has no interest in the service. He was dismissed from services in the past for remaining absent. The Labour Court has pointed out that regular presence is an important condition and discipline demands that the person should report for duties regularly. If there is a good excuse, it can be condoned. He was dismissed from services in the past for remaining absent. The Labour Court has pointed out that regular presence is an important condition and discipline demands that the person should report for duties regularly. If there is a good excuse, it can be condoned. But, in the instant case, the Labour Court has found that there is no explanation rendered by the workman. The Labour Court has found that he was dismissed on 26/03/1980 and after about a period of two years, he has raised the industrial dispute. He has not explained anything about this period. Considering these circumstances, the Labour Court has found that the reference is required to be rejected. It is against this award, the present petition has been preferred. ( 6 ) RELYING on the case of SARDARSINGH DEVISINGH VS. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SABARKANTHA and OTHERS reported in 1985 G. L. H. P. 940, a ground in the petition is raised that on the ground of absence, there should be no order of dismissal and the order of dismissal can be passed only in cases which can be said to be gross excuse such as receiving illegal gratification, misappropriation or defalcation of public funds, behaviour which is morally reprehensible gross abuse or misuse of authority etc. It was submitted that merely because the workman was absent, he cannot be dismissed. Ordinarily, even the employer is giving chances to improve the workman, but, in the instant case, he had not improved, had remained negligent by remaining absent, and thereafter, by following the procedure of law, if the inquiry is held and it is found that the workman is guilty of misconduct, the employer cannot be blamed. The Court in the case of SARDARSINGH DEVISINGH (Supra) clearly pointed out in para-7 that in the case, no punishment was imposed for remaining absent without leave in past. The Court also pointed out that an opportunity to improve would be a futile exercise or not, must be considered by the authority. In the facts and circumstances of that case, as there was no punishment imposed in the past and no opportunity was given to the workman to improve, the learned single Judge thought it fit to give an opportunity to him by imposing lesser penalty. In the facts and circumstances of that case, as there was no punishment imposed in the past and no opportunity was given to the workman to improve, the learned single Judge thought it fit to give an opportunity to him by imposing lesser penalty. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, as pointed out earlier, the workman was in the habit of remaining absent without leave and once he was dismissed from service. However, he continued to remain absent even after reporting, and again continued to remain absent without report or leave. The Labour Court has also found that even after dismissal order, for two years, he did nothing. Even before the Labour Court, on eight successive dates of hearing, he did not turn up. Thus, it seems that he has taken chance knowing fully well that he has no case. ( 8 ) THE Division Bench hearing the Letters Patent Appeal in case of MAGANBHAI L. CHAUHAN VS. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, G. S. R. T. C. reported in 1999 (1) G. L. H. P. 527 had an occasion to consider the case of workman discharging his duties as a conductor who was remaining absent. In that case in past also, it was found that the workman used to remain absent and schedule (trip of bus) was required to be cancelled. It is known that if the conductor is not available, either trip is to be cancelled or other person is to be engaged otherwise, public at large would suffer. ( 9 ) THE Labour Court in the instant case has examined the material placed on record. From the proceedings, it is clear that the workman was in the habit of remaining absent and it is not the case of solitary incident. Therefore, this Court would not be in a position to take a different view under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. .