DESUR DEVRAJ DANGAR Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule Mr. Y.S. Lakhani waives service on behalf of respondent in Special Civil Application No. 9478 of 1996 and Mr. H.K. Rathod waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent in Special Civil Application No. 1592 of 1997. On the request of the parties these matters are taken up for final hearing right today.

(2.) In both these petitions Award dated 13.2.1996 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference 1870 of 1984 is under challenge at the instance of the concerned workman and at the instance of the corporation respectively.

(3.) The services of workman Shri Desur Devraj Dangar who was Driver had been terminated by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation in exercise of powers conferred on it under Regulation 61 of the Gujarat State Road Transport Employees Services Regulation, 1961. The concerned workman raised an industrial dispute. The adjudication in this dispute has resulted into impugned Award whereby the relief or reinstatement with continuity of service and without any backwages has been granted. The workman is aggrieved against the denial of the backwages and Corporation is aggrived against the order or reinstatement with continuity of service. Mr. Rathod submits that backwages could not have been denied because Regulation 61 of the Gujarat State Road Transport Employees Services Regulations, 1961 under which the services of the workman had been terminated has been found to be in para materia with Rule 9(b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952 by the Supreme Court and on that basis Civil Appeal No. 3912 of 1996 as had been filed by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation against one Pankaj Kumar Dinkarrai Jani of Amreli had been dismissed. It is the contention of Mr. Rathod that once the termination under Regulation 61 is held to be illegal, consequences of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages must follow even if it is found that the opportunity was afforded to the Corporation before the Labour Court to adduce oral evidence on allegation of misconduct against the workman. He has further pointed out that the Labour Court has found that the charge is not proved.