SCA/1478920/2003 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14789 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 C.B.SINDHA C/O. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT KARMACHARI UNION - Respondent ================================================= Appearance : MS. JYOTI MEHTA FOR MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Petitioner : MR JS BRAHMBHATT for Respondent: ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 21/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [GSRTC] has assailed the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No. 61 of 2000, quashing and setting aside the order 27/11/1995 reversing the respondent workman to the lower pay scale and substituting the same SCA/1478920/2003 2/4 JUDGMENT with stoppage of one increment without future effect. 2. Ms. Jyoti Mehta for Shri. Hardik Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the workman has given a purshish exhibit-11 where under the workman has unequivocally declared that he is not disputing the legality & validity of the inquiry proceedings and challenges only the findings of the inquiry officer. In view of this, the entire award which is proceeded on various so called infirmities in the inquiry proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel Ms. Mehta submitted that this workman was earlier also found guilty of misconducts and atleast 11 misconducts have been reported. She submitted that looking to this kind of attitude the order of original penalty of reduction in scale could not be said to be an excessive penalty on any stretch of imagination. Therefore the substitution was not warranted at all as it is done by the Industrial Court in the impugned order. The Industrial Court ought not to have substituted the punishment which was result of full-fledged inquiry against the misconducts wherein guilt of the workman has been proved. 3. Shri Brahmbhatt for the respondent workman contended that the findings of the Industrial Court especially in para-8 of the award would go to show that under what circumstances the tickets could not be issued. Industrial Court has accorded findings with regard to only dereliction and or negligence in duty and does not say that such omission or action on the part of the workman was actuated by any intention of misconduct or misappropriation. Shri. Brahmbhatt has relied upon decision of this Court in case of GUJ ARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD Vs. JETHABHAI GANDHABHAI RATHOD, reported in 2004 LAB. I.C. 3099, SCA/1478920/2003 3/4 JUDGMENT and submitted that when the conductor was found to be negligent only and not for misappropriation then withholding increment with future effect is only the punishment and dismissal would be out of proportion. Shri Brahmbhatt therefore submitted that the order impugned need not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. This Court has perused the impugned award and heard learned counsels for the parties at length. This Court is unable to accept the submission of Shri Brahmbhatt as the Industrial Tribunal has though recorded in para-5 that by exhibit-11 the workman unequivocally gave up his challenge to the validity and legality of the inquiry proceedings. Once having recorded the same, it was not open to the Industrial Tribunal to elaborately rely upon and discuss the so called infirmity in form of cyclostyled printed question-answer which was forming part of the inquiry report. Reading of the entire award would go to show that cyclostyled printed question answer has weighed with the Industrial Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the inquiry had not been conducted in consonance with law. Industrial Tribunal's findings on this basis could be said to be not in accordance with law, as by submitting exhibit-11 the workman had given up his challenge to the legality & validity of the inquiry proceedings. So it was not open to the Industrial Tribunal to find any objection therewith. As it is stated herein above the Industrial Tribunal has elaborately dealt with it and has rather made it a base for quashing the punishment and substituting that with that of stoppage of one increment without future effect. The principle for substituting the penalty have not been appreciated nor have they been borne in mind while substituting the penalty. It ought to have weighed with the Industrial Tribunal that the factom of non issuance of tickets SCA/1478920/2003 4/4 JUDGMENT was glaring and it writ large on the entire proceedings. The findings of the Industrial Tribunal that the workman's negligence of not issuing tickets was not for mala fide intention could be rather said to be conjectures & speculations only,and it was not warranted in given facts & circumstances of the case. Therefore the findings can be said to be perverse. The substitution of penalty was not warranted at all. The decision cited at Bar by Shri. Brahmbhatt for the respondent workman is of no avail to the respondent in view of the fact that there the question of dismissal was involved which was found to be unreasonable looking to the aspect of negligence involved. In the present case there was no dismissal and it was only reduction of lower stage. 5. At this stage Ms. Mehta submits that the respondent workman was once again indulged such kind of practice where ultimately he came to be dismissed by way of punishment in the departmental proceedings on 20/9/1995. Against this, Shri Brahmbhatt could not dispute the same but submitted that even that dismissal order was set aside and the workman was reinstated. 6. Be that as it may; the aforesaid discussions would go to show that the order of the Industrial Tribunal suffers from patent perversity which can not be said to be sustainable in law, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petition accordingly succeeds. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. However there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn