Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 457 (GUJ)

Divisional Controller v. Manilal Bansidas Bavania

2002-06-25

P.B.MAJMUDAR

body2002
P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Corporation has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 1686 of 1985 by which the Labour court has directed the S. T. Corporation to reinstate the workman to his original post with continuity of service without backwages. The aforesaid award is challenged by the corporation on the ground that considering the misconduct of the concerned workman, the Labour Court should not have interfered with the penalty of dismissal passed by the disciplinary Authority and that the Labour Court should not have exercised powers under Sec. 11 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 2 ) THE respondent workman was appointed as a Conductor in the S. T. Corporation. He was subjected to charge-sheet on the ground that while on duty on the relevant day he collected fare from 19 passengers but failed to issue tickets to them. After conclusion of inquiry, the respondent workman was subjected to penalty of dismissal. Ultimately, the matter was referred to the concerned Labour Court as concerned workman raised industrial dispute. ( 3 ) THE case of the workman before the Inquiry Officer was that he was issuing tickets and during that process, the bus was checked. It is his case that the checking inspector was not having good terms with him. The Labour Court has observed in Para 7 of the order that the Competent Authority has acted only upon the spot statement and that the statements of certain passengers were not taken into account. The Tribunal has also further observed in the award that the defence of the workman in inquiry cannot be ruled out. However, at the same time, there are spot statements of the workman and the witness and the same are running contrary to each other. The Tribunal has also found that there was a serious charge against the concerned workman which disentitles him from claiming backwages. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not given any finding whether the misconduct is proved or not. Ultimately, the Tribunal has passed an order of reinstatement without backwages. It is argued by Mr. Raval that even in the past, the concerned workman was found to have committed 13 similar acts of misconduct and that his past record is absolutely bad. Mr. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not given any finding whether the misconduct is proved or not. Ultimately, the Tribunal has passed an order of reinstatement without backwages. It is argued by Mr. Raval that even in the past, the concerned workman was found to have committed 13 similar acts of misconduct and that his past record is absolutely bad. Mr. Raval has fairly submitted that the award of the Labour Court is of 1988 and the said award is complied with by reinstating the workman in service as no interim relief was granted at the time of admitting this petition. He submitted that in the facts of the case some penalty was required to be imposed upon the workman. He submitted that instead of sending the matter back, this court may exercise its powers under Sec. 11-A as the petitioner is retiring on 31. 10. 2002. Mr. Upadhyay, Ld. Advocate for the respondent submitted that he has no objection if some penalty was imposed and that the concerned workman is retiring by way of superannuation on 31. 10. 2002. ( 4 ) CONSIDERING the arguments of both the sides and considering the reasoning given by the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not given sound reasons in the award. Considering the fact that the workman is in service since 1988 and he is retiring within a short time, instead of interfering with the order of reinstatement passed by the Tribunal, it will be just and proper to inflict punishment of withholding of 2 increments with future effect. Considering the nature of misconduct which can be said to be of a serious nature, in my view, the workman cannot go scot free without any punishment. Withholding of backwages cannot be said to be a punishment at all. The said penalty will come into force from the date of the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. This petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent and the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court is confirmed and over and above the same, the respondent workman will be subject to penalty of withholding of 2 increments with future effect. This petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent and the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court is confirmed and over and above the same, the respondent workman will be subject to penalty of withholding of 2 increments with future effect. It is however clarified that rest of the order of the Labour Court is confirmed and that the respondent workman will be entitled to have benefit of past services and he will be treated to be in continuous service and all other benefits as if he remained in service throughout. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. .