SA/122/1986 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 122 OF 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG ========================================================= 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 - Appellant(s) Versus KIRITSINH NARBHA ZALA - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR. HARDIK C. RAWAL for Appellant(s). MS. VINITA VINAYAK for MR. P.M. THAKKAR for Respondent(s). ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG Date : 14/09/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT The present Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgement and Decree passed by the learned trial Court, which was confirmed in the regular First Appeal. SA/122/1986 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the respondent was working as a Conductor with the appellant-Corporation; on the foundation of misconduct that the respondent did not issue valid tickets and/or misbehaved with the Officers of the Corporation, a chargesheet was issued, inquiry was held and ultimately, he was terminated from the services. The workman, instead of filing an appeal against the said order or filing a dispute before the Labour Court, filed the civil suit. The trial Court held that the inquiry against the plaintiff-respondent was just and proper, but, the penalty was shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Upholding the charges of misconduct, the trial Court directed that the respondent-plaintiff be reinstated on his basic post. The appellant-Corporation, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred the regular appeal, which came to be dismissed, therefore, the appellant is before this Court. 3. By an interim order, this Court directed that the matter relating to back-wages shall remain in abeyance, but, the appellant-Corporation shall be obliged to reinstate the plaintiff. The Corporation, accordingly, reinstated the plaintiff. SA/122/1986 3/3 JUDGMENT 4. The learned Counsel for the parties inform that during the pendency of the appeal, the sole plaintiff- respondent has expired on 23rd July, 2001. As the respondent-plaintiff's legal representatives have not been brought on record and as he has been paid during the pendency of the appeal for the work done by him, nothing further can be done in this appeal. The appeal virtually has become infructuous. It is, accordingly, disposed of. The questions framed at the time of admission, are not required to be answered. No costs. [R.S.Garg, J.] kamlesh*