SCA/15225/2003 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15225 of 2003 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 ? ============================================= = GSRTC - Petitioner Versus NAGINBHAI M MAHYAVANSHI C/O.KIRIT C SHAH - ADVOCATE - Respondent ============================================= = Appearance : MS MONALI H BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, ============================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 17/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner-GSRTC, has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Surat on 17/08/2002 in Reference (I.T.) SCA/15225/2003 2/3 JUDGMENT No.1 of 1997 whereunder the punishment of reduction of three stage in the pay-scale of the workman to the original pay-scale was substituted with that of stoppage of two increments without future effect on the ground that the misconduct cannot be said to be that of misappropriation, but it was merely a negligence or dereliction in duty. 2. Ms.Bhatt, learned Advocate has submitted that the charge is clearly indicated that there was no proper explanation coming for in respect of the tickets of Maharashtra State for the denomination for Rs.2/- and non-renewal of RTO Licence which had expired on 26/12/1985. The misconduct and resultant loss even could not be explained at this stage. The entire award go to show that the Labour Court has recorded findings with regard to non-establishment of the guilt of the workman with regard to misappropriation and has held that it was actually the case of negligence or at the best dereliction in duty that too not was very serious as to warrant reduction of three stage in the pay-scale and therefore substituted it with stoppage of two increments without future effect. 3. Looking to the findings recorded by the Court and the discretion exercised under the Industrial Disputes Act, this SCA/15225/2003 3/3 JUDGMENT court is of the view that no interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim-relief stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) sompura