Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Bhagwanjibhai D. Kaneria

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—This petition is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th September 2004 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot whereby the Tribunal quashed and set aside three punishments imposed in three different cases and ordered to pay 50% of the consequential benefits with effect from 1st April 1998.

The respondent was serving as conductor with petitioner Corporation. On 28th May 1979 in a surprise checking it was found that the respondent has committed financial irregularity inasmuch as though he had collected fare from passengers, no tickets were not issued to them. In this connection after following procedure a punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with future effect was imposed upon the respondent vide order dated 30.11.1980.

In similar checking in the year 1985 another case was registered wherein a punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect came to be imposed upon the respondent on 23rd October 1985.

Again in the year 1993 for a default a punishment of stoppage of five increments with future effect came to be imposed upon the respondent vide order dated 14th October 1993. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal and the second appellate authority reduced the punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with future effect to stoppage of four annual with future effect. The respondent raised a dispute in respect of the aforesaid three different punishments which was referred to Labour Court. After adjudicating the matter the Industrial Tribunal passed the aforesaid judgment and award as stated hereinabove.

Heard Mr. Sanghvi for Mr. Dagli for the petitioner and Mr. Paul for the respondent workman and perused the relevant documents on record. As a result of this exercise it is not in dispute that there was a gross delay in preferring the dispute in each case i.e. 19 years, 13 years and five years respectively. Further, there are 20 past defaults by the respondent workman. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Industrial Tribunal ought to have imposed some penalty upon the respondent, especially when there are 20 past defaults. In view of these facts I am of the view that interest of justice would be met by passing the following order:

In respect of punishment order dated 30.11.1980, a penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect shall be imposed upon the respondent instead of stoppage of five increments with future effect. In respect of order dated 23rd October 1985, a penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect shall be imposed. As regards order dated 14th October 1993 is concerned, a penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect shall be imposed upon the respondent instead of four increments with future effect. The monetary benefits will be given only from the date of reference i.e. 20th April 1998 and for the remaining period only notional benefits will be given. The benefits shall be paid within a period of seven months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.