DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. K G BRAHBHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 29th November 2008 passed by learned Industrial Court, Nadiad in Reference (ITN) No.135 of 2001.

(2.) According to the respondent he was working with the petitioner Corporation. He was issued chargesheet and after inquiry ultimately he was dismissed from service. The respondent filed an appeal which was allowed and he was reinstated without backwages and he was imposed a penalty of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. The second appeal filed against the said order came to be dismissed. Therefore the aforesaid reference came to be filed where the impugned order came to be passed by modifying the order to the effect that the two increments should be stopped with temporary basis. It is against the said order that the present order has been passed.

(3.) Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, it is found that as many as 25 defaults have been committed by the respondent workman. It appears that in spite of these defaults are on record, the first appellate authority has ordered reinstatement purely on sympathetic consideration. From the tenor of the Industrial Court one may find that in spite of number of irregularities one can get away with a very minor penalty. Looking to the defaults committed by the respondent, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met by restoring the order of first appellate authority.