DASHRATHBHAI SHANKARBHAI PRAJAPATI Vs. GSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Learned counsel Shri Hardik Rawal, who appeared in Civil Application No.7642 of 2003 for condonation of delay for the respondent, appears and waives service for the respondent Corporation. At the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up today itself for final disposal and disposed of by this order.

(2.) . The appellant workman was serving as Driver with the respondent Corporation. The incident in question took place on 13th November, 1994 in which one innocent person lost his life because of the rash and negligent driving of the workman who was the driver of the bus. It clearly appears from the award passed by the Labour Court and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in the writ petition that the door of the bus on the driver's side was defective and, therefore, could not be opened. Instead of immediately reporting this defect to the higher authorities, he had stopped the bus at the slope by putting stone below the tyres. Thereafter, he entered the bus from the rear door. At that time, the bus started going to the platform within the bus compound where one innocent person who was sitting near the wheel of the bus on the driver's side relieving his bladder was crushed under the wheels of the bus and died then and there. There cannot be any better case of rash and negligent act. For his such a serious misconduct, he was found guilty in the departmental inquiry and initially punished with stoppage of eight increments by the disciplinary authority. However, the said penalty was found to be disproportionate. Therefore, the matter was taken up in suo motu revision by the higher authority in which maximum penalty of dismissal from service was awarded. This was challenged by the workman in Reference (LCS) No.862 of 1997 which was dismissed by the Labour Court by holding that it was such a serious misconduct wherein one innocent person lost his valuable life because of gross negligent act of the workman driver. Before the Labour Court, it was submitted that for this very Act, Criminal Case No.195 of 1995 was registered against the driver before the competent criminal court and at the end of trial, he was acquitted by the Criminal Court, therefore, the termination order should have been quashed and set aside. However, no such judgment of Criminal Court was produced before the Labour Court and the Labour Court found that the act of the Driver was such which cannot be viewed lightly and when the departmental inquiry was not challenged as per the rules before the Labour Court, then he cannot interfere with such order of dismissal. Accordingly, the Labour Court, by its impugned order and award dated 29th July, 1999, dismissed the reference.

(3.) Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, the workman approached this court by way of writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.9678 of 2001. Normally, when the court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case for admission, then it would admit the same and thereafter the matters are heard after some years. However, it appears that before the learned Single Judge, another advocate Shri Vaishnav appeared and learned counsel Shri Hardik Rawal, who is appearing in this appeal also, waived service of notice of rule and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was taken up on that very day i.e. On 28th December, 2001 and finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this court. Before the learned Single Judge, the judgment of the competent Criminal court acquitting the petitioner accused was produced for the first time. Considering the order of acquittal passed by the competent criminal court and considering the fact that the respondent Corporation had not disputed the fact that the witnesses and evidence at the departmental inquiry were the same, the learned Single Judge, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. PAUL ANTHONY vs. BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD. reported in AIR 1999 SC Page 1416, held that it was a fit case for interference with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court dismissing the reference of the workman. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court was set aside so also the order of dismissal dated 25th July, 1997 passed by the respondent Corporation. However, as regards the relief to be granted to the petitioner, the learned Single Judge observed that it would not be appropriate to grant the petitioner reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge observed that it would be just and proper to dispose of the petition with a direction that the petitioner shall be given appointment as a fresh employee by 31st January, 2002. The learned Single Judge also made it clear that the petitioner shall not be paid any back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. The learned Single Judge also clarified that the petitioner has to be employed as a fresh employee and the petitioner will not be given any benefits for the prior period. Thus, while setting aside the impugned order of termination passed by the respondent Corporation which was not interfered by the Labour Court in the reference, the learned Single Judge only ordered fresh appointment of the workman by 31st January, 2002 but denied all other consequential benefits including continuity of service and back wages to the petitioner workman. Not only that, considering the seriousness of the incident in question, the learned Single Judge also permitted the respondent Corporation to take into consideration the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in favour of the dependants of the deceased in case they approach the Tribunal, while paying the salary to the petitioner - workman in future by deducting the said amount by suitable instalments.