SCA/28942/2007 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 28942 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Petitioner Versus RAMANBHAI B PARMAR - Respondent ========================================================= Appearance : MRS FALGUNI D PATEL for Petitioner: 1, MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Respondent: 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 27/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent. By SCA/28942/2007 2/5 JUDGMENT consent Rule is fixed forthwith. 2. The petitioner, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the Award and order dated 22.2.2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No. 162 of 2000, quashing and setting aside the punishment imposed by the Corporation petitioner of stoppage of two increments with future effect of alleged misconduct of not issuing tickets on the ground that the same was not justified. 3. Facts in brief deserve to be set out as under in order to appreciate the controversy involved in this matter. 4. The respondent workman was on duty on 4.1.1994 in bus coming from Indore to Ahmedabad. The bus was intercepted and checked at Sherpur Tolnaka. The bus carried out 21 passengers and not a single passenger was issued any ticker. Hence a chargesheet came to be issued to respondent for not starting the bus in time and not issuing tickets and giving no explanation justifying the conduct. Ultimately, the punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect came to be imposed vide order dated 31.3.1995, which came to be assailed on behalf of the workman by preferring Reference before the appropriate SCA/28942/2007 3/5 JUDGMENT forum. The Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that the punishment was not proper and therefore, the order was quashed. 5. Ms. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Industrial Court has patently erred in not appreciating that there is no justification coming forward on the part of respondent workman as to why the bus was started late as it was supposed to be started at 8.45 hrs. and instead thereof, the bus started at 10-10 hrs. nor has there been any justification for not issuing tickets to only 21 passengers, which were traveling by this bus. The misconduct can thus be said to be proved. Despite that, the Industrial Court has gone on assumption of lack of intention to misappropriate. The non-collecting fare from the passengers in itself shall not be so sufficiently proved to vouch for innocence of the workman concerned. Inspite of the charges leveled against him in the chargesheet, the Labour Court has not given any other reasons so as to sustain the Award. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Shri Rathod, learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman has contended that even assuming for the sake of submission that the misconduct cannot be said to be so grave as to result into tremendous monetary loss that may SCA/28942/2007 4/5 JUDGMENT accrued on account of stoppage of two increments with future effect to the workman. Shri Rathod, however, could not point out as to why the workman did not start the bus in time nor has given any justification that why the workman has not issued tickets till the place of Tolnaka, where the bus was intercepted. Shri Rathod submitted to land some justification to the act of workman by pointing out recording of the Industrial Court that it was an express bus, and because of festival, there was heavy rush and traffic in the city limit and he was busy in clearing the traffic and was helping the driver. However, Shri Rathod submitted that Court may pass appropriate order keeping the position of the workman in mind as there was no intention of misappropriate at all. 7. In view of the submission of Mr. Rathod for passing appropriate order, this Court is of the view that the misconduct cannot be said to be so grave as to result into tremendous monetary loss that may accrued on account of stoppage of two increments with future effect to the workman and therefore, in the interest of justice the appropriate punishment should be punishment of stoppage of two increments without future effect. 8. This Court is mindful about the scope and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of SCA/28942/2007 5/5 JUDGMENT the Constitution of India, however, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the facts emerging from the record, the modification of the Award of Industrial Court and impose punishment of two increments without future effect and confirmed the rest of the Award would meet the end of justice. Accordingly, the award impugned stands modified. The punishment of two increments without future effect would be the punishment and on that basis, the other benefits available to the workman shall be released forthwith. 9. Shri Rathod, learned counsel appearing for the respondent requests that difference amount be paid to the workman as early as possible. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay the benefits available to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of writ of this order. 10.With aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav