AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 390 wordsK.J. Thaker, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(A) Be pleased to quash and set aside the award dated 05.06.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference(IT) No. 246/2000;
(B) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, grant stay as to the operation, implementation and execution of the Award dated 05.06.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, in Reference (IT) No. 346/2000
(C ) xxxx
Heard learned advocate for the parties. On oral instruction Mr. Brahmbhatt appearing for the respondent-driver has submitted on an query raised by this Court, that due to the pendency of this petition the workman has not been paid even his retirement dues. It may be because of the ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 26th November, 2004.
I am of the opinion that the award requires to be modified in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the fact being, that the driver was held guilty by authorities and due to his negligent driving a person had lost life and thereafter there were about sixteen complaints filed against him. Therefore, it would be just and proper to hold that instead of paying the minimum pay scale to the workmen two increments with future effect should be the punishment.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the penalty of paying the minimum pay scale to the workman is substituted by imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect. The amount of Rs. 2550/- which was ordered to be refunded is not quashed and set aside. The rest of the award remains unaltered. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.
It is hoped that Divisional Controller of petitioner-Corporation will give the retirement benefits of the respondent-workman as in the Cr. M.A., which was filed in the year 2007, the respondent-workman had raised this issue. The petitioner-Corporation shall fix the pay of the respondent-workman by calculating his pay scale with stoppage of two increments with future effect. If he has deposited Rs. 2550/-, the same shall not be refunded to him. The petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.