DIVISIONAL CONTORLLER Vs. RAJAK KARIMBHAI NAGAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Conciliation Officer & Dy. Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad in Approval Application No.248/2002 dated 04.09.2002, whereby, the said application came to be rejected.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent was working as a Conductor with the petitioner-Corporation. In connection with some irregularity related to the issuance of tickets, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner-Corporation imposed the penalty of fine of Rs.1500/- on the respondent. However, the same was enhanced to dismissal from service, by the reviewing authority of the petitioner-Corporation, vide order dated 28.05.2002. The petitioner preferred an application u/s.33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act before the competent authority. However, the said Approval Application came to be rejected by way of the impugned order. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears from the record that the petitioner-Corporation had made necessary payments towards Notice Pay and fine of Rs.1,500/- to the respondent. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to certains observations made by this Court in S.C.A. No.9400/2003 dated 06.12.2003, which was preferred by the respondent herein against the order of dismissal dated 28.05.2002; 6. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. It is clear from the record-documents produced that the petitioner-workman did not make a mention in the petition filed on 3rd July, 2003 about the receipt of the payment of Rs.1,500=00 though he had received the same on 1st August, 2002. From the conduct of the petitioner, it is apparent that he wanted to take advantage of non-action on the part of the Officer of the public body, which is a common thing. This Court has all the reasons to believe that it must be the petitioner, who must have seen to it that the aforesaid two documents are not produced before the Conciliation Officer. It is good that due to adversary system, the Court before granting any relief, issued Notice to the other side and in response to that, the respondent appeared and filed its reply and also challenged the rejection of the Approval Application by filing Special Civil Application No.16673 of 2003. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition suffers from vice of suppression of material facts, which by all means were within the knowledge of the petitioner-workman, in absence of any explanation, much less a satisfactory explanation for suppression of the same. The petition is dismissed with costs, which is quantified at Rs.7,500=00.