IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 4150 of 2002 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI ============================================================ 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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus RAMANBHAI S CHAUHAN -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT for Petitioner MR GK RATHOD for Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI Date of decision: 22/07/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 6th August 2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Reference (IT) No.324/98 whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioner Corporation to place the respondent on his original post with his basic scale and also to pay consequential allowances within 90 days. 2. The respondent workman was working with the petitioner Corporation as a Conductor. On a surprise checking it was found that the respondent workman had collected bus fare from the passengers and not issued tickets to them and that though he had collected the bus fare of ticket, he has not entered the same in the way bill. A chargesheet was issued to the respondent workman and a departmental inquiry was conducted. On completion of the inquiry, the respondent workman was punished by placing him on his original pay-scale. The first appeal filed against the said order was dismissed and even the Second Appeal was also dismissed. 3. The respondent workman approached the Industrial Tribunal which was numbered as Reference (IT) No.324/98. The Industrial Tribunal by judgement and award dated 6th August 2001 modified the punishment order and directed the Petitioner Corporation to place the respondent workman on his original post with his original basic scale and also to pay consequential allowances. It is against the said order the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in the present petition has already been concluded by this Court in Special Civil Application No.7189/1991 and therefore the Labour Court or Industrial Court ought not to have entertained the reference. 5. While admitting this matter, this Court (Coram: Miss Justice R.M. Doshit J.) observed as under: "On perusal of the judgement of the Tribunal, it appears that earlier a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.7189 of 1991 was preferred by the workman. However, the order made on the said writ petition was not brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal. The papers of Special Civil Application No.7189 of 1991 have been called from the registry. On perusal of the said papers, it appears that the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute in respect of the order of punishment dated 31st August, 1982 by raising a demand on 1st September 1989. The concerned authority, however, refused to make Reference to the Industrial Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred above Special Civil Application. This Court (Coram: Messrs. Justice A.P. Ravani & C.K. Thakkar, JJ., as they then were), after issuing notice, made the order as under:- The petitioner was punished for misconduct of not issuing tickets to passengers by order dated August 31, 1982. The punishment imposed was that he was reduced to the minimum time-scale of pay with permanent effect. The petitioner accepted the decision. But later on, that is after a period of more than 7 years, sought to raise dispute and prayed for reference. The request for reference is rejected by the appropriate Government mainly on the ground of delay. In view of this position, we request the learned counsel for the petitioner to show to us the original order passed by the disciplinary authority. We have gone through the original order. In our opinion, the order passed by the disciplinary authority is eminently just and proper. Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, the decision taken by the appropriate Government not to make reference is eminently just and proper and not required to be interfered with in exercise of powers under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, rejected." Thus, it is apparent that not only the Court upheld the decision of the concerned authority not to make Reference to the Tribunal, but also the order of punishment. Once the concerned authority has refused to make Reference which order was confirmed by this Court, the subsequent Reference ought not to have been made. If made, the same would not be maintainable. Further, even the challenge to the impugned order,in view of the above order, would be barred by the principle of res judicata. Thus, the Reference made to the Tribunal on 30th November 1998 and the order made on the said Reference are, in my opinion, void ab initio." 6. In this view of the matter, since the issue is already decided by the Division Bench it was not open for the Labour Court or Industrial Court to again adjudicate the same issue. Only on that ground the order of the Industrial Court is required to be quashed and set aside. 7. In the result, the judgement and award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Reference (IT) No.324/98 dated 6th August 2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 8. Mr. G.K. Rathod for the respondent workman submitted that the penalty which was imposed is dehors the rules and therefore the workman may be permitted to make a representation before the concerned authority and the authority may be directed to consider the same sympathetically. Accordingly it is directed that if such representation is made, the competent authority shall decide the same in accordance with law. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] *ar*