IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2878 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ======================================================== 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES 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 KHEDA VIBHAG S T KARMACHARI MANDAL ---------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 2878 of 1989 MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Petitioner No. 1 RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 1,2/1 ---------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date of decision: 01/02/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT This petition is filed against the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal,Ahmedabad in Ref. (IT) No. 599/86 on 30th September 1988. The petitioner has also prayed for stay against the execution and operation of the said order. 2. This Court has admitted the petition on 24.4.1989 and granted ad-interim relief in terms of Para 7(b) subject to the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 was employed as a Conductor by the petitioner-corporation and it was found that during the course of his duty between August-September 1981 and 1982-83, the respondent No.2 had not credited the amount received by him for sale of tickets undertaken by him from time to time and that he had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 779.45 ps. The petitioner-corporation had conducted regular departmental inquiry against the respondent No.2 and he having been found guilty, was reduced to his original scale of pay. 4. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the petitioner-corporation at the instance of respondent No.1 union, a Reference being Ref. (IT) No. 599/86 was made before the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The Industrial Tribunal had held that misconduct was committed by the delinquent but that since he has already paid up the amount misappropriated, the punishment imposed was highly excessive. The Tribunal substituted the penalty by stating that the order reducing him to the original scale of pay would be upto the date of the above order only. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-corporation has filed the present petition. It is the say of the petitioner that the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from serious errors of law and facts and requires to be quashed and set aside by this Court. It is further submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has exercised power under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, overlooking the fact that the penalty that was imposed was not of dismissal or termination of employment. The competent authority on consideration of the facts had imposed the penalty reducing the workman to his original scale of pay. It was not the case of the workman that there was victimisation or unfair labour practice and there was breach of natural justice and an enquiry was required to be held. It was further submitted that the Industrial Tribunal had no right to review the penalty and substitute its own. It is further submitted that the punishment imposed by the competent authority was not highly exhorbitant and would entitle the Industrial Tribunal to interfere when the misconduct was of misappropriation. It is further submitted that the delinquent was in service only for 4 years and during this short span he has been dealt with by the corporation 21 times. The petitioner has placed these details along with the petition. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 30th September 1988 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Ref. (IT) No. 599/86. It appears from the record that the respondent No.2 has expired on 2.12.2000. An application was moved to bring his legal heirs on record and the same was granted by this Court on 13-8-2001. 6. At the time of hearing of this petition, neither the petitioner's advocate nor the respondent's advocate is present. No affidavit-in-reply is filed in this petition. I have perused the memo of petition and also the above order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. As far as the power and jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is concerned, the law is by now well-settled. If the competent authority has imposed the penalty on the delinquent workman after following of due procedure and observing the principles of natural justice the said order cannot be disturbed or interfered with by the Industrial Tribunal without any cogent, clear or unequivocal reasons. Here in the present case, the punishment imposed was not that of dismissal or termination of service which warrants the interference by the Court. The respondent No.2 has put up service of 4 years and during that period also several defaults were committed by the respondent No.2. The charge levelled against him was of very serious nature which was of misappropriation and the same was proved in the course of departmental inquiry. The respondent No.2 has repaid the amount misappropriated and the very fact that the competent authority has imposed the penalty of reducing the respondent No.2 to his original scale of pay cannot be said to be an exhorbitant penalty looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Industrial Tribunal has wrongly interfered with the order of the competent authority and hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. I accordingly quash and set aside the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. However, I make it very clear that since the respondent No.2 has expired, his legal heirs should not be burdened with any financial loss. Hence, whatever amount is paid pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court keeping in mind the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the said amount may not be recovered from the legal heirs of respondent No.2. 7. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs. rmr. [ K.A. Puj, J. ]