AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE Vs. AMIRULLAH SALIM ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.M.K.Patel for Mr.Acharya for the respondent in SCA No.3408/04 and Mr.Munshaw for respondent in SCA No.3114/04 waive service of rule on behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of Ld.counsel for the parties matters are taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the respondent workman was the employee of the petitioner corporation for about 28 years. He had undergone treatment for TB with Shardaben Chimanlal General Hospital of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation during the period from 14.8.97 to 14.9.97 and the certificate for such purpose was also produced. It is the case of the petitioner that one bogus certificate of the Civil Hospital for the period from 17.9.97 to 17.11.1997 was produced for treatment by the respondent and the respondent on the basis of aforesaid certificates enjoyed leave and when it came to the knowledge of the petitioner chargesheet was issued to the respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that the statement, dated 18.10.1999 of the respondent was recorded whereby the respondent confirmed the certificate and shown his willingness to deposit the amount which he had received on the basis of bogus certificate, namely of leave, treatment and other benefits. An inquiry was held and ultimately the IO as per report, dated 5.2.2001 concluded that the charges of malafide intention are not proved but the certificates are not genuine and the IO opined that if the amount is paid as per undertaking the charges are not proved. The disciplinary authority on the basis of said IO's report issued show cause notice before imposing the punishment, dated 20.2.2002. The said show cause notice is brought to the notice of the court by Mr.Munshaw during the course of hearing and in the said show cause notice the only basis is IO's report and his findings as if the charges are proved and no reasons are recorded for disagreement with the conclusion arrived at by the IO. It appears that ultimately thereafter on 7.2.02 the order has been passed for dismissing the respondent workman from service and the amount of PF and gratuity is not forfeited. The respondent challenged the said decision by raising dispute under I.D.Act which ultimately came to be referred to the labour court being Ref(LCA) No.609/02. The labour court, as per the award, dated 31.12.2003 directed for reinstatement without backwages and the said award, so far it relates to the ordering of reinstatement is challenged by the employer in SCA No.3408/04.

(3.) The very award, so far it relates to not awarding of backwages is challenged by the workman concerned by preferring SCA No.3114/04. For the sake of convenience, since there are cross petitions, respective parties shall be described as employer and the workman hereinafter.