Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Fatehsinh Chhatrasinh Raj

J.N. Bhatt, Acting C.J.

By this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, serious challenge is made by the Gujarat State Road Transport

Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ""GSRTC"") against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6.5.2002 rendered in Special Civil

Application No. 14009 of 1993, whereby, the writ petitions filed by both the parties came to be partly allowed, the award dated 23.4.1992

passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch, in Reference (LCB) No. 310/83 [old No. 521/90] came to be set aside, and the GSRTC was directed to

reinstate the respondent-workman as BADLI WORKMAN to his original post at original seniority list with continuity of service without

backwages for the interim period from the date of termination till the date of award, but with full backwages from the date of award till the date of

actual reinstatement. It is in this context that the appellant-GSRTC has preferred the instant appeal by invocation of Clause 15 of the Letters

Patent.

A few material facts which are not in controversy, and which are relevant for the purpose of consideration and adjudication of the merits of this

appeal may be highlighted at this juncture:

a) The respondent-workman was working as a BADLI WORKER with the GSRTC and his name was enlisted in the list of BADLI WORKERS

as conductor.

b) There is no any controversy that BADLI WORKER is not a post, but a BADLI WORKER can be employed in absence of regular or

temporary employees for a short period during the spell of their absence, which may be for a day or more.

c) On 8.9.82, while the respondent-workman was working as a BADLI WORKER conductor in the bus of the GSRTC proceeding from Bharuch

to Suva, upon raid, the respondent-workman was found to have not issued tickets though fare was collected. Of course, this allegation of

misappropriation is only in respect of Rs. 2/=.

d) The management of the GSRTC inquired into the alleged act of misconduct and charges of misappropriation and found the respondent-

workman guilty of the charge of misappropriation.

e) It is also apparent from the record that after the appointment of the inquiry officer, opportunity was given to the respondent-workman and in the

course of inquiry, documents were produced at Ex.9 before the inquiry officer and both the parties desired and declared against adducing oral

evidence. It is in this context that the inquiry officer placed reliance on the documents placed before him on consensus.

f) The inquiry officer found the respondent-workman delinquent and guilty of misconduct and misappropriation of Rs. 2/= and not guilty in respect

of other charges.

g) It is also apparent from the record that the statements of passengers came to be recorded. Not only that, the photographs of the passengers

were also taken and were also produced along with the statements with documentary evidence which was tendered upon consensus.

h) Upon consideration, examination, evaluation and analysis of documentary evidence, and in absence of oral evidence led by either party, the

inquiry officer found the respondent-workman guilty as aforesaid and submitted his report to the management which was accepted. As a result of

this, and since the respondent-workman was not in fixed or temporary employment, and since his name was enlisted in the list of BADLI

WORKERS who could be employed upon willingness of both the parties in case or emergency when regularly selected workmen, either

temporary or permanent are absent, the name of the respondent-workman came to be deleted from the list of BADLI WORKERS.

i) The respondent-workman raised a reference against the aforesaid action of the GSRTC and u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ""the Act"") it was sent for adjudication to the Labour Court.

j) The impugned decision was thus rendered by the Labour Court, Bharuch, on 23.4.1992 whereby the so-called termination dated 27.1.1983 (as

a matter of fact, deletion of name from the waiting list of BADLI WORKERS) was not upheld. However, instead of reinstatement, the Labour

Court thought it expedient to award an amount of Rs. 25,000/= by way of compensation to the respondent-workman with cost of Rs. 150/=

(presumably and in all probability being a BADLI WORKER without any post and legal status).

k) Being aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court, both the parties questioned the legality and validity of the same by filing two writ

petitions being Special Civil Application No. 8479 of 1992 (by the GSRTC) and Special Civil Application No. 14009 of 1993 (by the

respondent-workman), and as can be seen from the impugned judgment, both the writ petitions came to be partly allowed.

We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties extensively. We have given our anxious thoughts and considerations to the factual

profile emerging from the record of the present case. Be it also mentioned that we have seriously considered the relevant and material legal setting

of the provisions of the Act as well as the relevant propositions laid down in recent case law.

Let it be first mentioned that ""BADLI WORKERS"" are not employees of GSRTC in view of the Regulation 16 of the Gujarat State Road

Transport Employees'' Service Regulations. The discipline and appeal procedure is also not required to be adhered to in case of BADLI

WORKERS. However, it is true that in case of BADLI WORKERS, principles of natural justice are required to be followed when they are to be

discontinued or their names are to be deleted from the panel of BADLI WORKERS upon some allegations, as not following the principles of

natural justice assumes the colour of stigma. There can be no any dispute about this proposition of law. In short, though BADLI WORKERS are

not holding any post or not on the establishment or have no any vested or accrued right to hold any post or they have no any status as ""employees

of the Corporation, at the same time, in a given case, if such person is sought to be discontinued or his or her name is sought to be deleted from the

panel of BADLI WORKERS with stigma, he or she is required to be afforded with an opportunity of hearing. In other words, principles of natural

justice are required to be observed. This proposition is based on the globally accepted doctrine that no man should be condemned unheard and

audi alteram partem.

However, at the same time, it cannot be contended that a particular procedure is required to be followed in each and every case. Adherence,

scrupulous following or strict observance of the principles of natural justice is one thing and at the same time, the mode, manner, and methodology

of following those principles would depend upon the divergent shades and variety of circumstances including the type, nature, magnitude, and

resultant effect of the alleged delinquency, misconduct or misdemeanor. There cannot be a straight jacket formulae or one and common yardstick

which can be prescribed for the following of principles of natural justice. This branch of law has been extensively explored, propounded and

expounded. A person, who has a right to have the benefit of principles of natural justice, cannot be heard, to say, as a matter of right, on the

ground that a particular type or method or mode of principles of natural justice ought to have been followed. Let it be also stated that in certain

contingencies, instead of affording hearing during inquiry, post-inquiry hearing is followed and considered as full compliance of principles of natural

justice. This illustration will drive home the point that there cannot be a fixity or certainty of following a particular mode, manner or methodology

about principles of natural justice.

It is in this context that when one views and considers the factual profile, the opportunity given to the respondent-workman by way of inviting

him to participate in the inquiry before the inquiry officer and allowing him an opportunity to cross examine the witness of the other side, and

permitting him to lead oral evidence, and the personal hearing before the inquiry officer, cumulatively and corroboratively, signifies and manifests

beyond doubt that there was complete adherence, compliance, and observance of the principles of natural justice. After having taken into account

the overall picture emerging from the record of the present case, and while viewed in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act, and the latest

proposition of law in this behalf, we have no hesitation in finding that the only proposition which the respondent-workman could advance

successfully has been regarding the observance of the principles of natural justice. But the fact that in absence of any legal and statutory right as an

employee of the GSRTC, when he was given full opportunity to participate in the inquiry, to cross examine the witnesses, to lead his evidence, and

to submit before the inquiry officer against the allegations and charges, undoubtedly comes to only and only irresistible inference, and that is of full

compliance and adherence of the principles of natural justice. In other words, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said even for a moment that

the respondent-workman is deprived of having benefit of principles of natural justice, and this contention is only an afterthought and cannot be

accepted as it runs diametrically opposite to the weight of record and established principles of jurisprudential concept of principles of natural justice

and such contention, as such, and in reality, in our opinion, is nothing but an attempt to catch a straw by a man who is drowning in the sea. The

submission therefore deserves one and only fate and that is of outright rejection, and accordingly, it is rejected.

The legal proposition which we have considered hereinbefore and the ultimate conclusion which we have reached is very much and significantly

reinforced by a reported Division Bench decision of this Court (Coram: M.B. Shah, J. as he then was & B.S. Kapadia, J. as he then was) in the

case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Chandulal G. Rasadiya, reported in 34(1) GLR 442. Further, Regulations 14 and 16 of the

Gujarat State Road Transport Employees'' Service Regulations are extensively explained, expounded and propounded, and our views and the

ultimate conclusions are also very much supported by the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Govindaraju Vs. Karnataka

S.R.T.C. and Another, .

In the light of the aforesaid observations eliciting the relevant principles and in the light of relevant rule provisions, while viewed in the factual

profile of the present case and the admitted facts, we have no hesitation in finding that the impugned award of the Labour Court and the

subsequent impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, are not supportable, unacceptable, and therefore, they are required to be quashed and

set aside, being not legal, reasonable, and justified. Consequently, the impugned award and judgment are quashed and set aside by allowing the

Letters Patent Appeal.

Nonetheless, before parting, bearing in mind the age old on going tug of war between workmen and management, and the historical past, and

the factum that though the delinquent, a poor workman, in reality, by employment of this judgment would be condemned and rendered jobless at

the age when it would be difficult for him to secure regular temporary or permanent employment, and considering the social circumstances, financial

status and the principles of the provisions of Section 11A of the Act, coupled with the fact that the Labour Court had already awarded

compensation, we are prompted to award some compensation to the respondent-workman payable by the GSRTC, which is a public utility

concern mainly designed to keep in mind the public welfare and transport facilities, and in our considered opinion, a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-

payable to the respondent-workman by the appellant would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, while allowing this appeal, we direct the appellant

to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/= by way of compensation to the respondent-workman, within a period of three months from today, failing which, the

respondent-workman will be at liberty to bring this aspect to our notice appropriately so that upon consideration, further directions can be issued.

The shall be no order as to costs.

In view of the fact that the appeal itself has been allowed, and disposed of, no orders are required on Civil Application. The Civil Application

shall stand disposed of. Notice is discharged.