AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE Vs. DHULABHAI SHANKERBHAI PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the employer against the judgment and award dated 13/07/1990 passed by the Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Ref.(LCA) No.22/83 whereby the respondent workman is ordered to be reinstated in service with 40% backwages. This petition was initially admitted and the stay was granted by this court on 12.6.91 staying the operation of the award as regards backwages. The learned counsel for parties have informed this court that in view of the fact that stay not being granted against the reinstatement, the workman, pending the petition, has been reinstated in service and is working as today.

(2.) . Short facts of the case are that the petitioner-employer is running transport operations in the city of Ahmedabad and the respondent is working as bus conductor with the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent workman had not issued ticket of Rs.3.85ps to the passenger and on the said count ultimately chargesheet was issued to the workman and an opportunity was given to the respondent workman to defend the case. However, the same was not availed of by the respondent workman and the inquiry officer had concluded that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter has issued show cause notice as to why the respondent workman should not be dismissed from service. The explanation given by the respondent workman was not satisfactory and therefore ultimately the decision was taken by the Transport Manager who is the competent authority of the petitioner to dismiss the respondent workman from service. The respondent workman thereafter raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which ultimately came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication in Ref(LCA) No.22/83. Before the labour court the respondent workman did not challenge the holding of departmental inquiry but contended that the findings are not accepted and that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges. The labour court examined the matter and found that the passengers are not examined during the course of inquiry and that the statements of certain passengers were not given together with the chargesheet. It was found by the labour court that it has not come on record that the amount of Rs.3.85ps was collected and that the respondent workman had not issued ticket to concerned passenger and it was further found by the labour court that it is the first incident and therefore ultimately the labour court found that the workman deserves to be reinstated in service and as regards backwages is concerned the petitioner was ordered to pay 40% of backwages. It is this award of the labour court which is under challenge before this court.

(3.) . I have heard Mr.Nagarkar learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.S.Patel learned advocate appearing for the respondent workman.