K . R . PARMAR Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2021 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) came to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara dated 09.09.2016 in Reference (I.T.) No.279 of 2014.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as enumerated in the writ petition are as under: 2.1) The appellant - workman (original respondent No.1) was serving as conductor with the respondent GSRTC. On 10.04.1999 at Jambdi-Jambusar route, when the bus in which the appellant was doing his duty as a conductor, came to be checked at Tankari Bhagol, eight passengers were found travelling without tickets from Kavi and the waybill, except Rs. 2/in stage No.2 and one other numbers were found closed. For the above misconduct, a charge-sheet was served and a notice was given and thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted against the appellant. At the end of the departmental inquiry, the competent authority, by an order dated 17.06.1999, imposed punishment of stoppage of three increments with future effect. The same was taken in review, and vide order dated 25.01.2000, the punishment was enhanced to the stoppage of four increments with future effect. The appellant workman raised a dispute after inordinate delay of 14 years, in which the appellant waived challenge to the departmental proceedings. 2.2) The Industrial Tribunal allowed the reference of the appellant - workman only on the ground that the passengers were not examined without considering the fact that the reporter was examined in the departmental inquiry and a chance to cross-examine the reporter was given but the appellant - workman refused to cross-examine the reporter. The Industrial Tribunal passed the impugned award by ignoring the submissions of the respondent GSRTC, documents on the record, delay in raising the dispute, past defaults of the appellant and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Against the said order, the aforesaid writ petition came to be filed by the respondent-GSRTC, which came to be allowed by the judgment and order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. N.D. Songara appearing on behalf of the appellant - workman has submitted that that learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition challenging the award dated 09.09.2016. It was also submitted that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in holding that the appellant has raised an industrial dispute belatedly.