IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 4166 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE RAVI R. TRIPATHI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- G S R T C Versus STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Petitioner RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 1, 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE RAVI R. TRIPATHI Date of decision: 09/02/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ("the Corporation" for brevity) has filed the present petition challenging the judgement and award passed in Reference (ITR) No.448 of 1984, whereby the punishment imposed by the authorities for stoppage of increment for one and half year with permanent effect was reduced to stoppage of increment for one and half year without future effect. It is this award which is under challenge by the petitioner Corporation. 2. The facts of the case are that respondent no.2, Kanji Bhagwanji Patel who was serving as a Driver had met with an accident, which caused injuries to the travelling passengers and also damage to the bus. After regular departmental inquiry held against the workman, by an order dated 13.1.1965 the authorities ordered stoppage of increment for one and half year with future effect. It was this order which was the subject matter of the aforesaid reference, wherein the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot ("the Tribunal" for brevity) had taken into consideration the case of both the sides including the facts that the incident is of the year 1963, reference was made in the year 1984, and thus, the Corporation had no record pertaining to said old incident. The Tribunal has recorded that along with the charge sheet no solid evidence was produced whereby the workman could have defended his case. The Tribunal has also recorded that the reference was raised in the year 1982 and the workman has not given any reasons for raising the dispute after such a long time. 3. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the aspect of delay on the part of the authorities as well as on the part of the workman and has come to the conclusion that interest of justice will be served if some punishment of stoppage of increment for one and half year is upheld, but with the modification that the phrase "with future effect" should be replaced by "without future effect". 4. On perusal of the papers, the Court does not find any substance to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. Hence the petition fails. Dismissed accordingly. Interim relief is vacated. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (Ravi R. Tripathi, J.) karim