SCA/6932/2001 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6932 of 2001 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 J M PRAJAPATI - Respondent ========================================= = Appearance : MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Petitioner MR GK RATHOD for Respondent ============================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 15/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner-GSRTC, has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated SCA/6932/2001 2/4 JUDGMENT 18/10/1990, passed by the Industrial Court, Nadiad in Reference (ITN) No.524 of 1998, whereunder the Industrial Court has modified the punishment of reducing the workman on the lowest pay-scale for ten years, into that of stoppage of two increments with future effect on considering the entire set of facts and circumstances attending the case. 2. Shri Ashish Dagli, learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the workman has not challenged the legality and validity of the inquiry proceedings and has only challenged the finding and the punishment awarded based upon the such findings. The workman has stated in his statement before the authority that on account of heavy rains, as the bus was to proceed further to its destination and as it was not very clear, the ticket could not be issued, though amount of fare of Rs.350/- was collected. In light of this, the punishment awarded of reducing the workman on the lowest pay-scale for a period of ten years was absolutely just and proper and therefore the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the same. 3. Shri Rathod, learned Advocate for the respondent- workman has contended that the findings were correctly found to be perverse by the Labour Court and the attending circumstances of heavy rain, water logging in the surrounding area and non- production of way-bill were glaring circumstances which have SCA/6932/2001 3/4 JUDGMENT weighed with the Court in recording findings that the Inquiry Officer's conclusions were perverse. However, despite that the Labour Court has taken into consideration the non-issuance of ticket and only substituted the punishment of reduction to the lowest pay scale for period of 10 years with that of stoppage of two increments with future effect does not call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. The glaring findings which has come on record go to show that the reporter has stated that the way-bill was closed. However, he has admitted that the way-bill had not been produced. As against this, the workman throughout contended that the way-bill was not closed. The non-production of way-bill coupled with the attending circumstances of the water logging, etc having not been disputed it had persuaded the court to conclude that there was no ill intention of workman for misappropriation. 5. At the same time, the Labour Court has considered the aspect of non-issuance of ticket after collecting the fare money i.e. Rs.350/- and recorded that as there was no past incident, substituting the penalty not permitting the workman to earn any increment and / or promotion, etc., for a period of ten years, into that of stoppage of two increments with future effect. This Court is of the considered view that the in these facts and circumstances SCA/6932/2001 4/4 JUDGMENT when the waybill in question had not been produced by the presenting officer and it was the say of the workman that he had closed the same as the very route of the bus had not been decided and the passenger in fact wanted to go further if the route was open deserves to be considered and in view of this Award impugned does not call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. This Court is of the view that the order impugned does not deserve to be interfered with and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. There shall no order as to costs. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) sompura