G.S.R.T. Corporation vs Shashikant V Bhatt and 1

D.H. Waghela, J.—The Appellant has invoked Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to challenge decision dated 07.03.2002 of learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5060 of 1999.

Relevant facts of the matter are that, the Appellant-Corporation had issued charge-sheet and initiated departmental inquiry against the Respondent in the year 1980. After a full-fledged inquiry and finding of serious misconduct on the part of the Respondent, an order of punishment was made, which was taken in review by the Appellant itself and finally, the Respondent was visited with punishment of stoppage of four increments with permanent effect. After exhausting departmental appeals, Respondent had approached the Industrial Tribunal with Reference in the year 1985 which was registered as Reference (I.T.) No. 99 of 1991. Thereafter, another Reference for the same dispute appears to have been made which came to be registered as Reference (I.T.) No. 71 of 1997. The Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar, consolidated both the References, and by the award dated 14.09.1998, set aside the order of punishment only on the ground that the Appellant had failed to produce record of the departmental inquiry, due to which adverse inference had to be drawn against the Appellant. When that awarded and order of the Industrial Tribunal was challenged before learned Single Judge of this Court, the petition was dismissed by the impugned order.

There is no dispute about the fact that the departmental inquiry against the Respondent, for the charge of re-issuing tickets to five passengers, was initiated in the year 1980 and both the reference cases pending before the Tribunal had remained dormant till the year 1997. It was on 31.07.1997 that the Respondent obtained an order for production of the record of inquiry and the record could not be produced on account of it having been destroyed in the meantime. On the other hand, the Respondent himself had submitted a pursis before the Tribunal to state that he was not challenging legality of the inquiry proceeding but only the finding and the punishment were called into question.

It is clear from the peculiar facts of the case that not only that the Respondent had his dispute referred twice but the first Reference remained pending in the Tribunal for seven years. It was nearly after fifteen years of the disciplinary action that the record was called upon to be produced. Thus, the Respondent stood to benefit from the unexplained delay in the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. Even as the Appellant would have so many cases pending against it and so much other records to preserve, the Respondent would have his own record of the inquiry and proceedings and he ought to have produced them before the Tribunal to discharge the primary burden of evidence which rested on him. Instead, practically even in absence of any evidence in favour of the Respondent and only on the basis of the failure of the Appellant to produce the record that the award was made by the Tribunal. Therefore, the award was required to be set aside as perverse and illegal.

Learned Single Judge erred in observing, while upholding the award, that the Tribunal had no other option, in absence of the record, but to pass the appropriate order granting relief in favour of the Respondent-workman. The Tribunal was required to resolve the industrial dispute in a reasonable and rational manner, taking into consideration all the relevant facts including the fact of the Respondent having delayed his demand for the documents till the fag end of the proceeding before the Tribunal

It was vehemently argued by learned Counsel, Mr. Pathak that an officer of the Appellant had admitted in his deposition before the Tribunal that as long las the departmental appeals were pending, the records were not destroyed and it was within six months of such departmental proceedings that reference of the industrial dispute was made. Therefore, the Appellants were not justified in not producing the record of the departmental inquiry, according to his submission. However, such contention could not derogate from the fact that excessive time had elapsed before the Respondent first demanded the record and he himself could have produced the relevant documents which he ought to have preserved.

In the facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 5060 of 1999 as well as the award and order dated 14.09.1998 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar, in reference (I.T.) No. 99 of 1991 and Reference (I.T.) No. 71 of 1997 are set aside with no order as to costs.