DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed for the following relief/s:

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt for the respondent No.1 - workman.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to the averments made in the memo of the petition and submitted that a charge-sheet was issued to the concerned workman viz. Siliyabhai Vechanbhai Rathwa, a conductor, who was working with the petitioner at Chhotaudepur Depot and thereafter departmental inquiry was conducted. After the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the inquiry officer passed an order dtd. 29/11/2003 by which the punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect was imposed on the workman. It is submitted that the said workman, through respondent No.1 - Union, raised the dispute after a period of approximately 6 years before the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, which was registered as Reference (IT) No. 106 of 2009. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 filed statement of claim and the present petitioner submitted a written statement. Thereafter the Tribunal considered submissions of the parties with regard to legality and validity of the departmental inquiry conducted by the petitioner and thereafter passed an interim order dtd. 27/7/2012 by which it was held that the departmental inquiry conducted by the petitioner is not legal and valid as the petitioner has violated the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that thereafter the Tribunal passed an Award dtd. 29/4/2013 without giving proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules. 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' for short). However, there was a delay of 420 days in filing the said application and therefore a separate application was filed for condonation of delay. However, the Tribunal, by way of impugned order dtd. 22/3/2017, dismissed the said application and therefore petitioner has preferred present petition.