DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. VAJIR MAHMAD NURMAHMAD SEPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the judgment dated 08.02.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad ("the Tribunal" for short), whereby the penalty imposed upon the respondent has been reduced.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent-workman was working as a Driver in the petitioner-Corporation. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent remained absent unauthorisedly from 01.09.1996 to 30.09.1996. A Departmental Inquiry was conducted and the charges were proved against the respondent. Penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect was imposed by the Competent Authority, by order dated 31.07.1997. The respondent preferred a first departmental appeal against the same. The Appellate Authority reduced the penalty to stoppage of one increment with future effect. As per the case of the petitioner, the respondent raised an industrial dispute after eleven years. In the reference, the respondent did not challenge the legality and validity of the Departmental Inquiry, but the penalty imposed upon him. After necessary adjudication, the Tribunal found that the respondent had remained unauthorizedly absent for 22 days. However, it reduced the penalty to stoppage of one increment without future effect by exercising power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short). Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Mr.Hardik C.Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the documentary evidence and submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in proper perspective and has modified the punishment imposed upon the respondent without considering the delay of eleven years. The legality and validity of the departmental proceedings were not challenged by the respondent, despite which the punishment has been reduced. It is submitted that looking to the misconduct of the respondent in remaining unauthorisedly absent for 22 days, the punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect as imposed by the first Appellate Authority was just and proper and did not warrant interference by the Tribunal.