Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Labhudan M. Gadhvi

M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 9.11.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol passed in Reference (LCK) No. 421 of 2004 by which the Labour Court relying upon circular issued by the Divisional Controller, ST, Mehsana dated 23.7.1997 has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent as Badli worker/ driver with 25% back wages.

The facts leading to the present petition in nutshell are as under:

2.1. The respondent was appointed as a Badli Worker/ Driver who met with an accident, due to which one Vijaykumar Thakor and one minor child died in a vehicular accident and his driving license was suspended by the RTO. As the respondent was working as a Badli worker driver only, respondent was not called on duty as his driving license was suspended and was not in position to drive the ST Bus as in absence of any driving license he could not have driven the ST Bus. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid action, respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to Labour Court, Kalol being Reference (LCK) No. 421 of 2004 and respondent relied upon one circular issued by the Divisional Controller, Mehsana dated 23.7.1997 by which in such a situation/case where the license of the driver has been suspended and/ or cancelled, he should be allotted some other work other than driving of vehicle/ ST Bus on the road. It was also contended on behalf of the respondent that before terminating his services no departmental inquiry has been initiated. The reference was opposed by petitioner by submitting that circular dated 23.7.1997 would not be applicable to the Badli worker/ Driver. It was further submitted that as the respondent was appointed and working as a Badli worker driver and his license came to be suspended/cancelled by the RTO there was no question of holding any further inquiry and as such he was serving and appointed as a Badli Worker, he was not called for the duty. The learned Labour Court accepted the case on behalf of the respondent and held that before terminating the services of the respondent, the petitioner has not considered the circular dated 23.7.1997 by not providing/offering some other work and that the termination is without holding any inquiry and consequently passed an order directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent to his original post of Badli worker with 25% back wages. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No. 421 of 2004, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Shri Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that Labour Court has materially erred in applying the circular dated 23.7.1997 which provides for offering other work other than driving work to those drivers whose license have been suspended and/ or cancelled by the RTO. It is submitted that as such the said circular would be applicable to the permanent employees/ drivers. Therefore, it is submitted that the Labour Court has materially erred in relying upon the said circular. It is further submitted that as the respondent was working as a Badli worker driver and his license came to be suspended/cancelled by the RTO and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid admitted position when he was not in a position to drive the ST Bus/ any vehicle there as no question of holding any further departmental inquiry and, therefore, the Labour Court has materially erred in directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent on the ground that before termination, no inquiry has been held. It is submitted that in view of the admitted fact of suspension/ cancellation of license by the RTO and even otherwise there was no question of inquiry and even if the inquiry would have been held, in that case, the same result would have been there. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application.

Shri M.K. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent has opposed the present petition. It is submitted that on appreciation of evidence and when the Labour Court found that termination of respondent was without holding any inquiry and when the petitioner did not consider the case of the respondent for other work, other than the work of driving as per the circular dated 23.7.1997 and when considering the above, the Labour Court has allowed the reference by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent as Badli Worker with 25% back wages only, no illegality has been committed by the Labour Court. Shri M.K. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that subsequently the respondent has been acquitted by the Competent Criminal Court and to the best of his information and knowledge he is working with ST Corporation as a Driver on regular basis.

Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. It is not in dispute that respondent was working as a Badli worker driver. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time when he was driving the ST Bus, he met with an accident, due to which one Vijaykumar Thakor and one minor child died in a vehicular accident and his driving license was suspended by the RTO. Therefore, the license of the respondent came to be suspended/cancelled by the RTO naturally respondent cannot drive any vehicle inclusive of ST Bus. Therefore, even if the respondent is relieved/ terminated without holding inquiry, in that case, also impugned action is not required to be set aside and as even if the departmental inquiry would have been held, no other view can be taken. Thus, in view of the aforesaid admitted position at the relevant time, the Labour Court has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the action of petitioner in reliving the respondent on the ground that same was without holding any inquiry. It is also required to be noted that as such the respondent was serving as a Badli worker driver and on cancellation/suspension of the driving license by the RTO naturally no other order could have been passed except not calling such an employee for duty as a Badli worker driver.

Now so far as reliance placed upon the circular dated 23.7.1997 issued by the Divisional Controller is concerned, on considering the same this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the said circular would not be applicable to Badli worker driver and the same would be applicable only with respect to permanent employees/ drivers. Even otherwise, considering the circular as a whole this Court is prima facie of the opinion that such a circular is absolutely illegal. The aforesaid circular provides that in case of any driver who is involved in vehicular accident and criminal case and his license was cancelled/suspended by the RTO in that case, he should be offered work to drive the vehicle in depot and in the ST Bus stand itself, which is not permissible at all. Once the license is cancelled/suspended by the RTO such person cannot be permitted to drive any vehicle at any place. Such circular is contrary to the provision of Motor Accident Vehicles Act and permit such driver whose license is cancelled/ suspended to drive the vehicle in the depot or in the bus stand. In any case, as stated above, such circular would not be applicable to Badli worker driver....

Now so far as submission of Shri Patel, learned advocate for the respondent that he has been subsequently appointed as a Driver on permanent basis is concerned, nothing is on record. If the respondent is appointed on permanent basis after due selection subsequently and during the pendency of the petition, this Court is not concerned with the same. In the the present petition this Court is required to consider legality and validity of the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court impugned in the present petition.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition succeed. The impugned impugned judgment and award dated 9.11.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol passed in Reference (LCK) No. 421 of 2004 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.