LAWS(GJH)-1991-4-26

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER BARODA Vs. SANATKUMAR D BRAHMBHATT

Decided On April 24, 1991
GRAM PANCHAYAT,DAMNAGAR Appellant
V/S
SANATKUMAR D.BRAHMBHATT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Brahmbhatt appears for the respondent and waives service of Rule. With the consent of the learned Advocates of parties, Rule is heard today.

(2.) The grievance made by the petitioner-Corporation in this petition under Art. 227 is that the Industrial Tribunal had patently erred in law and had also committed error of jurisdiction in refering with the punishment imposed departmentally against the petitioner by way of stoppage of three yearly increments with future effect and by substituting the punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect. Such type of jurisdiction could not have been exercised under Sec. 11A of (he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) which on its express language would not apply to such a case.

(3.) In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, a few relevant facts may be noted. The respondent was working at the relevant time as an octroi clerk. The allegation against him was that he had allowed a truck to pass without collecting octroi. On account of this incident, three charges were levelled against him. In the departmental inquiry, it was found that out of three charges, the first charge was mostly proved, the second charge was not wholly proved but lie was found to be negligent and third charge was not proved. However, ultimately, punishment by way of stoppage of three yearly increments with future effect was imposed by the disciplinary authority. The respondent raised an industrial dispute to the effect whether punishment of stoppage of three yearly increments should be vacated and whether deducted amount should be refunded to the workman or not. This dispute was adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal which reached the conclusion that looking to the charges which were proved, punishment of stoppage of three yearly increments with future effect would be too harsh and consequently, punishment of stoppage of one yearly increment without future effect was substituted.