MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER Vs. K N PALANIYA NAKA CLERK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. J.R.Nanavaty for the petitioner and Mr.Y.V. Shah,l earned advocate for the respondent workman. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner corporation has challenged the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) NO. 167 of 1991 (Old No. 172 of 1987) dated 1st May, 1993 wherein the Industrial Tribunal has set aside the order of punishment dated 26.9.1986 and has further directed to treat the period of suspension as a period on duty for all purposes and necessary payments as a consequence thereof are required to be made by the petitioner corporation to the respondent workman within the period of thirty days from the date of publication of the award.

(2.) This petition was admitted by this court by issuing rule thereon and ad.interim relief in terms of para 7(B) of the petition was granted by this court on 19th January, 1994.

(3.) During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Nanavaty for the petitioner that the tribunal has committed gross error in coming to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the workman concerned is not established. It was also submitted by him that the charge sheet, order of suspension and the show cause notice in original were signed by the competent authority means the Commissioner of the Corporation but in communication, subordinate officer has signed. According to him, it does not render the charge sheet and the show cause notice as well as the suspension illegal or without jurisdiction. He also submitted that the tribunal has committed gross error in coming to the conclusion that the competent authority Commissioner has not signed the charge sheet, show cause notice and the punishment order. He also submitted that the tribunal has committed gross error in reappreciating the evidence led in the departmental inquiry. He also submitted that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and to come to a different conclusion from the departmental authority. Therefore, according to him, the tribunal has committed gross error in making the award in question in favour of the workman and, therefore, interference of this court is necessary.