GSRTC Vs. STATE TRANSPORT KARMACHARI UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms.Vasavadatta Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation.

(2.) This Court has issued RULE on 28th January, 2002 and ad-interim relief in terms of Para-7[B] has been granted on the basis of the fact that in past, the respondent workman has committed 40 defaults as pointed out by learned advocate Ms.Vasavadatta Bhatt before this Court.

(3.) In the present petition, petitioner Corporation has challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference [IT] No.19 of 1996 dated 16th November, 2000, wherein the Tribunal has set aside the order of punishment of stoppage of five increment with cumulative effect with direction to pay all the consequential and incidental benefits to the second party conductor with cost of Rs.500.00. Learned advocate Ms.Vasavadatta Bhatt on behalf of the petitioner Corporation has submitted that the tribunal has committed gross error in reappreciating the oral evidence led in the departmental inquiry while coming to the conclusion. It is further submitted that such reappreciating on the part of the Tribunal is contrary to the law. Ms.Bhatt, learned advocate submits that the Tribunal has analyzed oral evidence led in the departmental inquiry and came to the erroneous conclusion that the finding is baseless and perverse. She has also submitted that no doubt the respondent workman has not recovered the fare from 20 passengers but according to the report, his intention was clearly not to issue the tickets to collect fare at the time when the passengers get down at destination and therefore, the intention was malafide on the part of the respondent workman. Thus, according to her, the intention of the workman was malafide to recover the fare from the passengers with oblique motive while not issuing the tickets and no fare was collected by the respondent workman. It is also pointed out that it was city bus, wherein the bus was checked by the checking staff near the bus stand and therefore, intention of the respondent workman to recover the fare subsequently from the passengers when their destination comes. Therefore, Ms.Bhatt, learned advocate submits that the tribunal has overlooked the intention of the respondent workman and passed the award which is contrary to the law.