High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 08 GUJ CK 0188

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Ratigar Mohangar Gosai

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 4 August 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. S. Jhaveri, J
CASE NUMBER
Special Civil Application No. 10183 of 2003

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 394 words

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—This petition is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th January 2003 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No. 48 of 2001 whereby the Labour Court has quashed and set aside the order of dismissal passed by competent authority and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent without back wages.

2.

The respondent was serving with the Corporation as Conductor. On 6th March 1998, on a surprise checking, it was found that though the respondent had collected fare, he had not issued tickets to the passengers. A charge-sheet was issued and departmental inquiry was initiated which resulted into dismissal of the respondent. The first statutory appeal came to be dismissed and even the second appeal also was dismissed. The respondent therefore raised a dispute which was numbered as Reference (LCJ) No. 48 of 2001 before the Labour Court, Junagadh. After adjudicating the matter the Labour Court passed the judgment and award as stated hereinabove against which the present petition has been filed.

3.

Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the relevant documents on record. As a result of this exercise, looking to the evidence on record I am of the view that dismissal from service is an extreme punishment and the Labour Court has rightly passed the order of reinstatement without back wages.

4.

However, the Labour Court has overlooked the fact that there are 31 past defaults committed by the respondent. The respondent is an employee with public sector undertaking and he was dealing with public money which he has misused. Most of the defaults were misappropriation of money. Therefore I am of the view that the Labour Court ought to have imposed some punishment upon the respondent in consonance with the gravity of misconduct. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that interest of justice would be met by imposing a penalty of stoppage of five increments with future effect.

5.

Accordingly a penalty of stoppage of five increments with future effect shall be imposed upon the respondent. However, the respondent shall be given continuity of service. The award of the Labour Court is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.

6.

The award shall be implemented within a period of six months from today.