IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 661 of 2001 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8437 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH ============================================================ 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 @ GSRTC Versus BL DANDUR -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 661 of 2001 MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant No. MR ANAND L SHARMA for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH Date of decision: 19/09/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE) The judgment delivered in Special Civil Application No. 8437 of 2000 dated 2.8.2000 has been challenged in this appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under : 3. The respondent was working as a Conductor under the appellant. In the course of performance of his duties as a conductor, it was found that he had collected fare from some of the passengers and had not issued tickets. By doing so, he had misappropriated money belonging to the employer appellant. Departmental enquiry had been initiated against the respondent workman and ultimately he was dismissed from service. The respondent workman was aggrieved by the order and ultimately the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Surat. By an award dated 19.4.2000, the Labour Court, Surat, directed that the respondent workman should be reinstated in the cadre of conductor without back wages at the place where he was formerly working. 4. The appellant was aggrieved by the said award and, therefore, Special Civil Application No. 8437 of 2000 was filed by the present appellant. The said petition was rejected by an order dated 2.8.2000 as the learned single Judge found that the award of the Labour Court was just and proper. 5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the petition, the appellant, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, has approached this Court by way of this appeal. 6. Learned advocate Shri Hardik Rawal has appeared for the appellant and has submitted that the learned single Judge ought not to have confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court. It has been submitted by the learned advocate that the respondent workman had misappropriated money belonging to the appellant employer and, therefore, integrity of the respondent workman was not beyond doubt. It has been submitted by him that as a conductor, the respondent workman would get an opportunity to misappropriate money belonging to the appellant again if he is reinstated as a conductor. It has been therefore submitted by him that looking to the fact that the respondent workman was found to be dishonest, he ought not to have been reinstated in service by the Labour Court and the learned single Judge ought not to have confirmed the award of the Labour Court. Learned advocate Shri Rawal has submitted that even in the past the respondent workman had been punished on several occasions for his misconduct. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate Shri Anand Sharma appearing for the respondent workman has submitted that the respondent workman has suffered a lot because he was dismissed from service and the Labour Court has directed reinstatement without back wages. It has been submitted by him that sufficient loss has been suffered by the respondent workman by losing the back wages. It has been also submitted by him that the respondent workman has repented for what has been done and upon his he reinstatement as a conductor, he would perform his duties honestly and sincerely. He has, therefore, submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 8. We have heard the learned advocates and have perused the award of the Labour Court and the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge. 9. Upon perusal of the award and after hearing the learned advocates, we prima facie feel that it would not be proper to reinstate the respondent workman as a conductor because in that event he would get a chance to become dishonest again. Even if the respondent workman is reinstated and so as to see that his livelihood is not adversely affected, he should not be reinstated as a conductor but he should be given appointment in any other cadre where there is no possibility of misappropriation of funds of the appellant employer by the workman. 10. In view of the above facts and having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge and modify the award passed by the Labour Court to the effect that the respondent workman be given fresh appointment in any cadre other than the cadre of conductor. It is, however, directed that his pay should be protected in such a manner that upon his fresh appointment, his pay would be equal to the pay which a newly appointed conductor would have got. The respondent workman shall not be entitled to back wages but it is directed that the appellant shall give appointment as per the directions given hereinabove within a period of four weeks from today and if appointment is not given within 4 weeks from today, the respondent workman shall start getting his salary from the end of 4 weeks from today. 11. It is also directed that it would not be necessary for the appellant employer to give posting to the respondent workman at the place where he was working. It is however directed that as far as possible, the respondent workman be given appointment in Rajkot Division, where he is residing. 12. As the above directions are given looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case, this order shall not be treated as a precedent. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. (A.R. Dave, J.) (D.P. Buch, J.) (hn)