RANJANBEN A CHAUHAN Vs. CHIMANLAL R VAGHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is preferred by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") against the award dated 27.3.2001 passed by the Labour Court at Kalol in Ref(LCK) No.455/93 whereby the respondent-workman is ordered to be reinstated in service by substituting the penalty of stoppage of increment for three months with future effect.

(2.) The facts leading to the present petition are that the respondent-workman was working as a Conductor with the petitioner-Corporation since 1970. The default card of the respondent-workman shows that (i) on 5.10.1974 he was imposed penalty of withholding increment for three months for the misconduct of not charging ticket from one passenger on the route of Jodiya-Tharad, (ii) On 22.10.74 again he was imposed penalty of withholding of increments for three months for misconduct of not preparing way bill as required, (iii) On 21.3.75 the increment was withheld for three months by way of penalty for the misconduct of not issuing tickets to three passengers though the amount was collected, (iv) vide case No.144/75 the respondent-workman was imposed penalty of withholding of three increments with future effect for not issuing ticket to passenger though the amount was collected by him, (v) vide Case No.278/76 increments were withheld for six months by way of penalty for the misconduct of not collecting fare and not issuing ticket for one passenger on the route of Palanpur-Tharad, (vi) vide Case No.277/76 one increment was withheld by way of penalty for not collecting fare and not issuing ticket to one passenger on the route of Ahmedabad-Tharad, (vii) vide Case No.78/80 penalty of withholding one increment for three months was imposed for the misconduct of remaining absent from 26.12.1979 to 10.1.1980 without obtaining prior permission, (viii) vide Case No.370/81 the respondent-workman was imposed the penalty of withholding increment for six months for the misconduct of not accepting the duty allotted to him on 25.8.80 and left the duty on his own, (ix) vide Case No.45/81 the penalty of withholding increment for six months with future effect was imposed for misconduct of not remaining present on duty on 17.12.1980 at the scheduled time, (x) vide Case No.104/82 the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the respondent-workman for the misconduct of remaining absent without obtaining prior leave for the period from 31.12.1981 to 17.1.1982, however, it appears that thereafter during the departmental appeal proceedings the respondent workman was taken back in service as stated by Mr.Dagli appearing for the petitioner-Corporation. (xi) Vide case No.278/83 the penalty of withholding of increment for three months was imposed on the respondent-workman for the misconduct of not collecting fare and not issuing ticket to one passenger while on duty on 1.7.83, (xii) vide Case No.479/90 penalty of withholding increment for two months was imposed on the respondent workman for the misconduct of not issuing ticket to one passenger and not collecting fare while on duty over the route of Kalol-Nandasan, (xiii) vide Case No.271/78 three increments were withheld with future effect by way of penalty for the misconduct of not depositing the left out items of passengers when the respondent workman was on duty on 17.5.78 on Ahmedabad-Tharad route, (xv) vide Case No.284/91 penalty of withholding one increment with future effect was imposed upon the respondent-workman for the misconduct of not remaining present on duty without obtaining prior sanction from 24.9.91 onwards. Lastly, for the period from 26.9.92 to 12.11.1992 the respondent workman remained absent without obtaining prior leave of the competent authority of the petitioner Corporation. Ultimately, for the last incident of remaining absent from 26.9.92 to 12.11.1992 the departmental inquiry was conducted by the petitioner corporation and it worthwhile to note that during the aforesaid period vide letter dated 28.10.1992 the petitioner corporation had called upon the respondent workman to resume duty , however, he did not make any attempt to join duty. Not only that but the respondent workman did not participate in the departmental inquiry and ultimately the authority concerned was compelled to proceed with the departmental inquiry exparte. The charges were found proved and thereafter show cause notice for imposing penalty was issued and ultimately the disciplinary authority found proper to impose penalty of dismissal. Against the said order of dismissal it appears that the respondent workman raised dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(3.) Before the labour court, the contentions raised by the respondent workman were that by the officer of the petitioner corporation by way of victimisation and by changing the root on duty he was being harassed and he was asked to sit in the office. It was the contention of the workman that since he had filed an application against the Corporation under Payment of Wages Act, by way of victimisation without making payment inquiry is held and he has wrongly been dismissed from service without paying even compensation etc. On behalf of the petitioner, a reply was filed containing the above referred past record of the workman and it was also interalia contended at the time of hearing by the petitioner corporation before the Labour court that the post which was held by the respondent workman was that of a Conductor and because of his absence and not remaining present on duity the corporation was umpteen number of times not only faced various administrative difficulties but the passengers at large were also required to suffer and that it had caused financial implications since those roots were required to be changed, and hence, the imposition of penalty of dismissal is legal and valid. The labour court ultimately adjudicated the issue and it is worthwhile to note that at para 4 of it award it has been mentioned that the workman has admitted the departmental proceedings. However, in his contention the findings of the inquiry officer are perverse. The labour court ultimately found that the charges are proved during the course of departmental inquiry and the findings of the inquiry officer are proper and the labour court did not accept the contention of the respondent workman that the findings of the inquiry officer are perverse. However, the labour court found that on account of absence, the imposition of penalty of dismissal is harsh and therefore ultimately the labour court under purported exercise of powers under section 11A of the Act substituted the penalty by withholding three increments with future effect and directed the petitioner corporation to reinstate the workman in service. It is against this award passed by the labour court the petitioner corporation has preferred the present petition before this court.