Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Prahladsinh R. Jadeja

Akil Kureshi, J.—This petition is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation questioning the judgment dated 30.12.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No. 175 of 1997. The brief facts are as follows:--Respondent workman was working as a conductor for the G.S.T.R.C. On 17.8.1995 the bus in which he was discharging his duty was checked by checking squad. It was found that in case of one passenger instead of Rs. 17/- fair collected, he issued the ticket short by Rs. 5/-. On the basis of such allegations departmental inquiry was conducted against him. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect. Such order of the disciplinary authority dated 24.1.1996 came to be taken into review by the reviewing authority. By an order dated 31.7.1996 the reviewing authority set aside the order of the disciplinary authority and enhanced the punishment to stoppage of two increments with permanent effect.

1.1 Aggrieved by the said order of the reviewing authority the workman sought reference. In such reference the Industrial Tribunal by the impugned judgment set aside the order of reviewing authority and restored the order of the disciplinary authority. While doing so, the learned Judge observed that though the reviewing authority has power to enhance punishment, in the present case without there being any additional material or evidence for examining any new witness the reviewing authority could not have enhanced the punishment and imposed the major penalty. It is this order that the G.S.R.T.C. has challenged before the High Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the G.S.R.T.C. Though served no one appeared for the respondent workman. With respect to the stand of G.S.R.T.C. that the observations of the Industrial Tribunal that without any additional material evidence or witness the penalty could not have been enhanced, are not correct. I am in full agreement with. The reviewing authority would have ample jurisdiction to examine the material already on record and to judge as to whether the order passed by the disciplinary authority suffered from any legal error. If so, the reviewing authority could as well enhance the penalty. It did not require any new, fresh or additional material to do so. To that extent the observations of the Industrial Tribunal are not valid.

Having said that, in terms of ultimate analysis the order of the Industrial Tribunal requires no interference. This is so because from the outset the defence of the workman was that due to increase in the fair separate coupons had to be issued for the fair. In case of all other passengers full tickets were issued. Only in case of one passenger due to human error one ticket short by five rupees was issued. There was thus no malafide intention on his part. If this be the facts, in any case, imposing penalty of withholding on increment with permanent effect would be excessively harsh punishment. In terms of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, in any case, the Industrial Tribunal had ample power to interfere with the quantum of punishment if found excessive. The order of the Industrial Tribunal therefore sense the observations found invalid, also needs to be sustained. In the result, subject to observations above the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.