DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. AMARSINH K DAMOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the petition being special civil application No. 10565 of 1999, the petitioner corporation [ hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation] has challenged the impugned order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in in Approval Application No. 217 of 1996 in Reference IT No. 64 of 1996 dated 128.6.1996 whereby, the tribunal has rejected the approval application. By filing the special civil application No. 10263 of 1999, the petitioner-workman [hereinafter referred to as "the workman"] has prayed for a direction to the corporation to implement the orders passed by the tribunal in the aforesaid reference by reinstating the workman in service with full back wages for intervening period. Therefore, since both the petitions are arising from the order passed by the tribunal in aforesaid Reference and since the subject matter of both the petitions is one and the same, both the petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Rule in both the petitions. Learned advocate Mr. KV Gadhia appearing for the corporation in special civil application No. 10263 of 1999 has waived service of rule. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt appearing for the respondent corporation in special civil application no. 10565 of 1999 has waived service of rule on behalf of the said respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of case and with the consent of the parties, both the petitions have been taken up for final hearing today.

(3.) The facts of the present case, in brief, are that the workman concerned namely Amarsinh K. Damor was working with the corporation as a conductor at Dahod Depot. On 9.2.94, the checking party has checked his bus and it was found that the workman has collected fare of a group of five passengers but has not issued the tickets. Regarding group of second five passengers, the workman has not collected fare and has also not issued tickets to those passengers. There were only ten passengers in the bus. The workman was, therefore, served with charhgesheet and thereafter,departmental inquiry was held against him and after affording him full opportunity to raise defence, ultimately, the workman concerned was dismissed from service on 6.9.1996. Order of termination alongwith one month wages notice pay was served. At that time, reference IT No. 64 of 1996 was pending before the industrial tribunal at Ahmedabad and, therefore, the petitioner corporation had preferred approval application no. 217 of 1996 in the said reference under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The tribunal, after considering all the relevant documents produced by the corporation and also after hearing the learned advocates appearing before him, held that the departmental inquiry initiated by the corporation against the workman concerned was against the principles of natural justice and the same has been vitiated and complete notice pay was not given to the workman and, therefore, said approval application was rejected by the tribunal on 28th June, 1999 with costs of Rs. 500.00. Said order of the tribunal dated 28th June, 1999 has been challenged by the corporation in special civil application No. 10565 of 1999.