DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. SAHDEVSINH JATUBHA JADEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of IndiaGujarat State Road Transport Corporation has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 13.2.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nadiad passed in Reference (LCN) No.50 of 2001, by which, the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the said reference and has quashed and set aside order of dismissal dated 21.09.1995 and has directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent in service without back wages but with continuity of service.

(2.) That the respondent was serving as a Driver with the petitioner and at the relevant time in Nadiad Division. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him for misconduct of misbehaving with the Rapar Depot Manager Shri Jadav on 21.07.1994 and giving threats of killing him. That in the departmental inquiry the respondent workman did not participate and departmental inquiry proceeded further exparte. That in the departmental inquiry Rapar Depot Manager Shri Jadav came to be examined who specifically narrated the incident and giving threats of killing by the respondent to him. That after conclusion of the departmental inquiry, Inquiry Officer held charge and misconduct by the respondent of misbehaving with the higher officer and giving threats of killing to higher officer held to be proved. That the disciplinary authority by order dated 21.09.1995 passed order of dismissal dismissing the respondent from service. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal, the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court, Nadiad which was numbered Reference (LCN) 50 of 2001. That by impugned judgment and award, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has partly allowed the said reference and has quashed and set aside the order of dismissal observing that the finding given by the Inquiry Officer holding respondent workman guilty for the charge and misconduct of giving threats of killing to the Higher Officer is perverse on the ground that no independent witness, more particularly, two witnesses namely Abbaskhan A Chauhan and Rohitbhai Ghelabhai Barot were examined in the departmental inquiry and on the ground that subsequently in the criminal case the respondent has been acquitted for the charge / offence of giving threats to the higher officer. However, in exercise of powers under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned Labour Court has while ordering reinstate has denied back wages by observing that in the facts and circumstances of the case the charge of misbehavior with higher officer has been established, the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct committed.

(3.) Shri Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that learned Labour Court has materially erred in allowing the Reference and quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner.