SCA/16651/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16651 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE ====================================== 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 ? ====================================== RAVJIBHAI L. GUJARATI Versus GSRTC ====================================== Appearance : Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod for the petitioner Ms. Avani S. Mehta for the respondent ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 10/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/16651/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT 1 This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the award dated 4th August 2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Himmatnagar, in Reference [L.C.H.] No.96 of 1999, whereby, the Reference of the petitioner- workman is rejected in view of proved misconduct of non-issaunce of tickets by the petitioner on collection of fares from the passengers. 2 The petitioner was working as a Conductor with the respondent- Corporation since 12 years. On 16th July 1995, when he was on duty from Junagadh to Modasa route, his bus was checked and found by the checking inspector that the petitioner had not given tickets to five passengers who had paid total fare of Rs.70. In the departmental enquiry, the charge was proved and, consequently, the petitioner was visited with the dismissal order dated 12th August 1996. Against the order of dismissal dated 12th August 1996, the petitioner approached the first appellate authority and the second appellate authority, but in vein and, ultimately, the Labour Court confirmed the order of dismissal. Hence, the present petition. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Authorities below have failed to appreciate the defence canvassed by the workman about the circumstance for permitting the passengers to board the S.T. Bus at a particular destination and the reasons for non-issuance of tickets in view of dispute about the place of boarding of the bus. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the explanation rendered by the workman that the workman-conductor tried to help the S.T. Corporation by permitting the passengers to board the S.T. Bus since it was found that, on the way, a luxury bus was stranded and the passengers were waiting for a bus. Not only that, but, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the statements were recorded on the dotted lines. The SCA/16651/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had served for 12 years and, when the petitioner was not at all fault, the defence of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the Labour Court by directing reinstatement with back wages. 4 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. A.T. Mane, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254 and Managing Director, North-East, Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. K. Murli, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 570, this is not a fit case to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. On going through the record, it is found that, in the past also, the petitioner had committed 25 such offences and punishments were inflicted on the petitioner. Therefore, there is nothing wrong on the part of the Corporation losing confidence and faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. Considering the past-conduct of the petitioner and the concurrent findings of the Authorities below, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of judicial forums and interfering therefor with the quantum of punishment. In my view, the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved against him coupled with his history. 5 This petition has no substance and is rejected. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. (ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy)