High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 07 GUJ CK 0076

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Laxmanbhai Kanabhai Maradia

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 28 July 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. S. Jhaveri, J
CASE NUMBER
Special Civil Application No. 870 of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 343 words

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—This petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 30th July 2003 passed by Labour Court, Junagadh, in

Reference (LCJ) No. 182 of 2000 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits

without back wages and also with penalty of stoppage of three increments with future effect.

2.

The respondent was working with the petitioner Corporation as a conductor. It was found that while on duty the respondent had punched the

tickets in such a way that the same can be reissued. He was chargesheeted, departmental proceedings were initiated and ultimately his services

were dismissed. The respondent raised a dispute which culminated into the aforesaid reference and the Labour Court passed the judgement and

award as stated hereinabove.

3.

Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the relevant documents on record. The main contention raised by the

petitioner is that looking to the past conduct the Labour Court ought not to have reinstated the workman in service and in any case the penalty

imposed is on the lower side.

4.

Having heard the parties, I am of the view that the judgement of the Labour Court is justified for reinstating the respondent workman as

dismissal from service is a penalty too harsh. However, looking to the 31 defaults committed by the respondent, the penalty of stoppage of three

increments is on the lower side. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, especially looking to the 31 defaults, I am of the view

that interest of justice would be met by imposing a penalty of stoppage of five increments with future effect.

5.

Accordingly the penalty of stoppage of three increments is converted into five increments with future effect. The rest of the award is not

disturbed. The award of the Labour Court is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

6.

The respondent will be reinstated within one month and the monetary benefits will be given within four months from today.