AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 29.4.2006 passed by the Labour
Court, Rajkot, in Reference (LCR) No. 275 of 2000 whereby the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service and without
backwages. The facts of the case, in short, are that the respondent was working as a Conductor. When he was on duty on 26.8.1991, while the
checking squad checked the bus, certain irregularities committed by the workman were noticed. Charge sheet was issued to the workman. After
holding departmental inquiry, the competent authority dismissed the workman from service vide order dated 22.12.1992. The respondent
workman raised industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, passed
the award as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in spite of serious allegations of misconduct of the workman, the Labour Court has
committed error in exercising powers u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and wrongly reinstated the workman in service. She further contended
that the workman has committed 19 defaults. In that view of the matter, while exercising powers u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour
Court ought to have imposed some penalty. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent workman has supported the order of the Labour Court and submitted that the Labour Court has passed
just and proper order. No interference is called for with the same.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the evidence on record and keeping in mind 19 defaults committed by the workman, in
my view, the ends of justice will meet if penalty of stoppage of three increments with future effect is imposed on the workman. In the result, the
petition is partly allowed. The order granting reinstatement with continuity of service is confirmed. However, penalty of stoppage of three
increments with future effect is imposed on the workman. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. The order will be implemented
within seven months.