DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. PRESIDENT, VINAYAK KARMACHARI MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner - employer under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot (hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal") in Reference (I.T.) No.123 of 2012 whereby the Tribunal has quashed the order of stoppage of the increments for six months with permanent effect and the employer was directed to fix pay after considering notional pay during the period in question and pay all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the employer has preferred this petition on the ground that the employee was a conductor and he has not issued ticket to the passenger though he has recovered Rs.6/- on 05.08.2003 on Jamnagar - Kalawad - Dhoraji local route. It is contended that the necessary departmental inquiry was held against the conductor and he was afforded opportunity of hearing and after such inquiry, he was awarded the aforesaid punishment. Against that punishment, the conductor has preferred departmental appeal which came to be dismissed. It is further contended that after almost six years, he has preferred the aforesaid reference which came to be allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that during the department inquiry, the witnesses were not examined and no other documents were recorded and there was breach of natural justice and, ultimately, the departmental inquiry along with punishment came to be quashed. It is also contended that the conductor has even not challenged the departmental inquiry and he has only challenged the punishment. According to the petitioner, the award passed by the concerned Industrial Tribunal is not in consonance with the well settled principles of law and it is perverse and it is required to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Initially, the respondent - workman was served, however, he has chosen not to appear before the Court and, therefore, by order dated 20.06.2016, the impugned award came to be stayed. Even after issuance of the fresh process, the workman did not appear.