Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 34 (GUJ)

HANSRAJ M CHUDASAMA v. G S R T C

2006-01-18

B.J.SHETHNA, M.C.PATEL

body2006
B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel Shri K. D. Pandya for the appellant. When the petition was filed under Art. 227 of the constitution and the learned Judge also exercised his jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution, then no appeal would lie before this court in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ISHWARBHAI NAROTTAMBHAI PATEL v/s. K. H. TRIVEDI, reported in XLIV (3) GLR 1878. Hence, on this ground alone Appeal was required to be dismissed. Even if it is held to be maintainable then on merits also it has no case. ( 2 ) SHRI Pandya for the appellant vehemently submitted that when the learned Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction by setting aside the termination order and reinstating the workman in service with back wages, with punishment of stoppage of three increments, then the learned Single Judge of this Court ought not to have interfered with such discretionary order in his writ jurisdiction. It is true that the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction in favour of the workman by ordering reinstatement of service, but the question is whether the Labour Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in favour of the workman or not" In the instant case the Labour Court has completely ignored the fact that in the past the workman was dismissed from service twice on similar type of allegation of misappropriating the public fund. He was a Bus Conductor. In the instant case the allegation against him found to be proved is that he has not issued the tickets to 21 passengers though he has collected the fare from them. He was caught red-handed in the raid. Under the circumstances, in our opinion, the Labour Court was absolutely wrong in exercising its discretion in favour of such a corrupt person. Therefore, the learned Single judge was right in exercising his suervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) SHRI Pandya for the appellant submitted that the learned single Judge should not have intefered with such supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the constitution as there was no jurisdictional error committed by the Labour Court while passing the order of reinstatement of the workman. In support of his contention reliance was placed of the decision of the honble Supreme Court in the case of MOHD. In support of his contention reliance was placed of the decision of the honble Supreme Court in the case of MOHD. YUNUS v/s. MOHD. MUSTAQIM and ORS. , reported in AIR 1984 SC 38 . ( 4 ) IN our considered opinion, on peculiar facts of the case, the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in his limited supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the constitution to interfere with the award passed by the labour Court as the learned Judge of the Labour Court exceeded in his jurisdiction in passing the order of reinstatement of workman though such serious charge of misappropriation of public fund was proved against him in domestic inquiry. ( 5 ) IN view of the above discussion, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. ( 6 ) AS the main Appeal is dismissed, Civil Application No. 265 of 2006 for stay would not survive. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. .