IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 9689 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO 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 CORPN Versus FATESINH KHUSHALBABA ATALIYA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Petitioner MR MTM HAKIM for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD Date of decision: 19/04/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr.Hakim,learned advocate appearing for the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself. 2. Thefacts of the present petition, in short, are that though the respondent was not on duty on 29.5.1985, he drove the ST Bus No. GRJ 7317 in an intoxicated stage by consuming liquor and took the bus unauthorizedly. On theway, he dashed the bus with a truck and thereafter,with a jep in which officersof the ST Corporation were travelling. Police complaint was filed against the respondent. Departmentalinquiry was initiated against him inwhich the charges levelled against him were proved. He was reduced to the minimum pay scaleof driver against which he preferred first departmental appeal. In the departmental appeal, theauthority concerned took the order in review and showcause notice was issued to the respondet as to why thepunishment of dismissal sholuld not be imposed on him. Thereafter, the punishment of dismissal was imposed against which the respondent approached thelabour court by filing reference No.748 of 1992. The labour Court, Vadodara, by impugned judgment and award dated 9.2.1999 partly allowed the said reference and directed the petitioner corporation to reinstate the respondent workman in service with 25% of the back wages for the intervening period. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by ths said judgment and award of thelabour court, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petitionunder Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties. Learned advocate Mr. Raval appearing for the petitioner corporation has submitted that beforethe reviewing authority, the respondent who had been working for more than ten years had admitted that at the time when the said accident had taken place, hewas unauthorizedly driving the bus fromDabhoi to Karjan and at that time, he was in intoxicated stage but it was the explanation of the respondent workman that he had taken it as a medicine. Therefore, it was submitted by Mr. Raval that in view of such admission made by the workman before the first appellate authority/reviewing authority, the labour court ought not to have passed award of reinstatement. Hehas further submitted that the grant of 25% of the back wages for the intervening period would amount to premium and, therefore, the impugned award is bad, illegal, unjust and is liable to be quashed and set aside. I have perused the impugned award passed by the labour court. I have also perusued the papers brought on record. I have also considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. Before the labour court, the respondent workman had filed purshis whereby he had admitted the legality, validity and propriety of the departmental inquiry initiated against him but he was aggrieved with the findings drawn by the inquiry officer and he was further aggrieved with the impugned order of dismissal as being harsh and unjustified. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the respondent workman has submitted that the respondent's evidence was not cross examined by the petitioner before the labour court. He has further submitted that no evidence was led by thepetitioner before thelabour court for controverting the averments made by the respondent workman. He has further submitted that in criminal proceedings, the respondent was acquitted bythe criminal court. He has submitted that inview of his acquittal from the criminal charge, the petitioner corporation was not justified in imposing harsh and excessive penalty of dismisal from service. Hehas submitted that initially the competent authority has imposed punishment of putting him in the minimum scale of the category of driver which order was challenged by way of appeal and during thependency of the appeal proceedings, the matter was reviewed by the appellate authority. He has further submitted that in the facts and circumtancesof the case, the appellate authority was not justified in reviewing the matter and, therefore, the labour court was right in exercising the powers under section 11A of the ID Act and was also right in reinstating the respondent in service with 25% of the back wages for the intervening period. In similar situation, in caseof Jashvant Sinh versus Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation, reported in AIR 1984 SC 355, the apex court has observed that no doubt the driver of a passenger bus cannot and should not consume intoxicated liquor while on duty because that endangers safety not only of the passengers travelling in the said vehicle but those who were using the roads but where it was the first offence of the driver and the labour court, in exercise of the powers under sec.11A of the ID Act, was of the opinion that in the facts of the case, punishment of dismissal was rather heavy and not called for and, therfore, reduced the punishment. It was further observed that thelabour court was right and justified in directing reinstatement of the workman. It was further observed that mere denial of back wages to the driver is not sufficient and it was observed that further punishment is also called for and should be imposed. The apex court therefore directed that the driver should not be given three increments in the time scale in which he would be reinstated for the next three years. In view of the above decision and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the impugned award is required to be set aside in so far as it relates to grant of 25 % of the back wages for the intervening period. I am also of the view that in addition thereto, further punishment of stoppageof three annual increments is required to be imposed upon the workman with permanent/recurring effect. The impugned award, thus, is required to be modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned award is quashed and set aside in so far as it relates to grant of 25% of the back wages for the intervening period. Further, the petitioner is directed to stop three annual increments of the respondent workman with permanent effect. Rest of the award qua reinstatement of the respondent workman shall remain in tact. Accordingly, the award impugned herein is modified as under: The petitioner is directed to reinstate the respondent workman in service with continuity of service and without any back wages for the intervening period with a further punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with future effect. Since this Court has allowed this petition in part and since this court has confirmed the reinstatement of the respondent workman as aforesaid, in the interestof justice, the petitioner corporation is directed to implement the impugned award as modified by this Court as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receiptof certified copy of this order by reinstating the respondent in service. The petitioner corporation is further directed to pay full wages from the date of the impugned award dated 9th February, 1999 till the date of actual reinstatement of the respondent workman within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. This petition is thus, partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms indicated hereinabove with no order as to costs. 19.4.2000. (H.K.Rathod,J.) Vyas