Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs J.S. Thakor

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard learned advocates for the parties.

Rule. Ms. Ajmera waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-workman. Rule fixed forthwith at the request of learned advocates for the respective parties.

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging award dated 12-6-2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Reference (IT) No. 448 of 2000 quashing and setting aside the order passed on 13-2-1998 stopping two increments with future effect of the respondent workman as a result of punishment after departmental inquiry persuant to fatal accident holding the respondent workman driver to be partly responsible.

The facts, in brief, deserve to be set out as under:

The respondent workman received chargesheet on 11-9-1996 alleging that on 28-11-1995 while he was driving bus No. GJ-1 Z-1811 on the way to Patan, hit a motorcyclist which resulted into his death. The accident occurred on account of his negligence in driving the vehicle, and therefore, inquiry was ordered. Inquiry was concluded and punishment of stoppage of increments for five years with future effect, that means, stoppage of five increments with future effect, came to be initially imposed which was reduced by Departmental Appellate Authority to that of two years with future effect. The workman raised industrial dispute which was referred to Industrial Court, which came to be numbered as Reference (IT) No. 448 of 2000. The Industrial Court allowed the reference and quashed and set aside the order of punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect being perverse. The award dated 12-6-2007 is impugned in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as stated herein above.

Mr. Munshaw for the petitioner submitted that the evidence on record goes to indicate that the driver was negligent though it has come on record that he attempted to prevent the accident but negligence and rather lack of appropriate caution and care, while driving the bus on road, was not exercised by the respondent-workman and, therefore, the appellate authority has taken into consideration all the aspects and reduced the punishment to that of stoppage of two increments with future effect for the lack of due care and caution on the part of the driver and that ought not to have been interfered by the Industrial Tribunal and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Ms. Ajmera appearing for the respondent workman contended that the award is absolutely justified and proper and when the award does not suffer from any patent illegality or error apparent on the face of record, this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, may not interfere with the same. She has taken this Court through the entire award and strenuously urged that the Tribunal''s conclusion being not erroneous, cannot be said to be so unreasonable as to warrant any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. She contended that the finding of Labour Court with regard to report of accident, police papers and testimony of the reporter, cannot be said to be perverse in any event and, therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the finding of the Inquiry Officer was perverse, needs to be upheld by this Court and the matter deserves to be dismissed.

This Court has heard learned advocates for the parties at length. This Court is unable to accept the submissions made by learned advocate Ms. Ajmera. It requires to be noted that the workman had filed a pursis at exh.21 wherein expressly, the workman gave up his challenge of initiation and legality of departmental inquiry. The issue was, therefore, confined only to the finding of the inquiry authority. Labour Court, despite that, has recorded its finding on the conducting of inquiry as could be seen from the reasoning part of the award wherein, the Court has come to the conclusion that inquiry authority ought not to have relied upon the statement, without affording an opportunity of cross-examination to the workman, of those persons who made statements. The finding of the Industrial Tribunal recorded in reasoning part of the award clearly indicates that the opinion building process had started with regard to conducting of inquiry though it was not open to the Court in view of pursis exh.21 whereunder the workman expressly had given up the dispute with regarding to initiation and conducting of inquiry proceeding. In this very part of the reasoning, the Labour Court had gone ahead and even observed that very inquiry had been initiated with prejudice as the officer ordering inquiry, before initiation of inquiry, had accepted the version with regard to responsibility of the workman for the incident in question. This means, holding of inquiry was found to be bad and perverse as the Labour Court has recorded. These findings of the Court are clearly perverse which was not open in view of the clear pursis as stated herein above in the form of exh.21. The Labour Court has proceeded on this premise and against this back drop while examining the finding, has naturally, therefore, come to the conclusion that inquiry is a case of no evidence. On the contrary, the Labour Court ought to have taken into consideration the punishment imposed, in light of the charge and findings of I.O., the charge is not that of mere negligence only on the part of workman, the charge is revolving around lack of due care and caution which is required to be exercised by driver of bus on public road. In fact, the charge is with regard to lack of care and caution which is expected of a driver while driving on public road. In the instant case, the sketch prepared of the incident clearly indicates that the bus was on extreme right side though said action is said to be for saving the motorcyclist but at the same time, it is to be noted that the motorcyclist hit the bus on, i.e., driver side. Had due care and caution been exercised by the driver, i.e., respondent then the accident could have been avoided and had not taken toll of a human life. In view of this, the reduced penalty imposed could not have been said to have been perverse so as to warrant interference. The award of the Tribunal as it is stated herein above, is, therefore, suffering from patent error and the same is required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly it is quashed and set aside.

The petition is, therefore, allowed. Rule made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to costs.