Divisional Controller vs Nazir A Malik and 1

Honourable Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi

Heard learned Advocate Ms.Archana Patel for Learned Advocate Mr. Hardik C.Raval for the petitioner and learned Advocate Ms. Mohini J. Bhavsar for respondent No. 1-workman.Learned Advocate for the petitioner requests that if the matter could be taken up for final disposal.Learned Advocate for the respondent-workman has noobjection.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted thatthere were as many as 74 defaults to the credit of therespondent-workman and therefore, award and order dated 03.09.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court No. 1, Bhavnagar, in Reference (LCB) No. 442 of 1999 is unwarranted and cannot be allowed to stand. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in ordering 20% back wage still the date of super annuation, which is 28.02.2006 withall consequential benefits, which has aggravated theadverse effect.

2.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that outof 74 defaults, for one of the defults, the respondent workman was awarded punishment of dismissal, but later on, the same was varied and he was continued in service. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent- workman was punished by stoppage of increments, which some were with future effect and others were without future effect.

2.3 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that inlight of that, to award 20% back wages till the date of superannuation is too harsh an order, causing loss to the public exchequer. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the defaults are of ''financial irregularities'' as the respondent-workman was serving as'' Conductor''.

Having heard the learned Advocate for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it will be in fitness of things if the award and order dated 03.09.2010 is modified to the effect that the respondent-workman be allowed to retire from service on 17.01.1996, that will be without any stigma and the respondent-workman will be entitled to receive whatever benefits he is entitled to on his walking out of the service on 17.01.1996. This will be as a part of exercise of balancing the interest of both the parties.

In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Award and order dated 03.09.2010 is modified. The petitioner-GSRTC is directed to allow the respondent-workman to retire with effect from 17.01.1996. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

At the request of learned Advocate Ms.Mohini J.Bahvsar for the respondent-workman, the petitioner is directed to paypost-retiral dues to the respondent-workman at the earliest, but not later than eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and order.