EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GUJARAT REFINERY Vs. ASHWINKUMAR R PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Executive Director, Gujarat Refinery, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vadodara, is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.12.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Judge is pleased to dismiss Special Civil Application No. 3798/2000 filed by the present appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 13.1.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Vadodara, in Reference (I.T.C.) Case No. 4/1992, whereby the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal (Central) was pleased to pass the order as under :- The reference is allowed and it is ordered that the action of the Management of Gujarat Refinery (I.O.C) Ltd. P.O. Jawaharnagars, Baroda, through the Chief Personnel and Administrative Manager and by its officer in terminating the services of Shri Ashwainkumar R. Patel, Operator-D from the service of the Corporation is not legal, proper and justified, hence the first party Company is hereby directed to reinstate the second party workman on his original post, operator -D, with continuity in service and with all other consequential benefits. The first party-Company is also directed to pay the 50% of the back wages from the dismissal till reinstatement in terms of this award. The first party company shall bear its own costs and pay Rs. 1000/- as costs of this proceedings to the second party workman. This award shall be implemented within 30 days of its publication.

(2.) LEARNED Senior Advocate Mr. Manish R. Bhatt for the appellant submitted that the respondent-workman had also filed a petition being Special Civil Application No. 12331/2000 challenging the award of 50% back wages only. The said petition was also dismissed by the common judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant has challenged the judgment only to the extent it has dismissed Special Civil Application No.3798/2000 filed by the present appellant.

(3.) LEANED Senior Advocate invited the attention of the Court to the judgment of this Court passed in the said writ petition and submitted that besides a larger controversy of the Corporation (appellant) being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, the question such as the case being of no evidence was also considered, and last but not the least, the Court was also requested to consider the question of disproportionate punishment . Those questions as mentioned hereinabove stood answered by the Court in so many words. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that he is not raising any issue about 'not disclosing the factum of having filed petition (SCA No. 4375/1983) before this Court , but that is definitely a relevant consideration when it comes to appreciate the conduct of the respondent-workman.