Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 188 (GUJ)

Alkhabhai Manjibhai Gameti v. Divisional Diretor

2013-04-01

Jayant Patel, Mohinder Pal

body2013
Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 30.3.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.4000 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, has dismissed the petition and the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal was not interfered with. 2. We have heard Mr. Japee, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Hardik Rawal, learned Counsel appeared for the respondent on the advance copy. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the allegation against the appellant was projected allegation and in the criminal case, such was not the accusation made against the appellant. It was submitted that the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer was perverse to the record. The said aspect is not properly considered by the Industrial Tribunal and so was by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, this Court may interfere. It was also submitted that the learned Single Judge has not examined the merits of the matter and has considered the technical aspect of delay, etc., and, therefore, the matter deserves consideration in the present appeal. 4. After considering the award passed by the Tribunal, which was impugned in the matter before the learned Single Judge, it appears that the pertinent aspect is that before the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant had submitted purshis at Exh. 23, whereby the legality and validity of the inquiry and the record was not challenged and only finding of the Inquiry Officer was challenged. The Industrial Tribunal has appreciated evidence of the inquiry and it is found that except one or two workmen, all other workmen had supported the case against the workman i.e. the appellant herein. It is also found that as per the record of the inquiry, when new bus was not allotted, the appellant workman had consumed intoxicated material and had instigated the mob and had damaged the bus and also there was attempt on Shri Khan, Traffic Inspector. The charges were found to be proved and even the finding recorded by the Tribunal was supporting the finding of the Inquiry Officer. If the charges were found to be proved, the punishment of putting pay-scale six stages down could not be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the Reference. 5. The charges were found to be proved and even the finding recorded by the Tribunal was supporting the finding of the Inquiry Officer. If the charges were found to be proved, the punishment of putting pay-scale six stages down could not be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the Reference. 5. The attempt made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to re-appreciate the evidence cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of 227 of the Constitution would not sit in appeal over the decision of the Tribunal. The finding of the Industrial Tribunal also could not be said to be perverse to the record. 6. Under these circumstances, it appears to us that the award passed by the Tribunal could not be said as erroneous, which may call for interference in exercise of the power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. 7. In view of the aforesaid aspect of merits, we find that no useful purpose would be served by interfering in the appeal on a mere ground that the learned Single Judge did not consider the merits of the matter and dismissed the petition on technical ground. We find that if on merits there is no case of the appellant, no useful purpose would be served in entertaining such contention. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the ultimate decision of the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the petition does not call for interference. Hence, the appeal is not entertained and dismissed. No order as to costs.