Meghjibhai Nagajibhai Narigara vs Divisional Cantroller

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—These petitions are directed against the judgment and award dated 30th December 2004 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Approval Application No. 165 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal rejecting the approval application and directing the employer (hereinafter referred to as petitioner-employer) to reinstate the employee (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-employee) by imposing a penalty of stoppage of two increments without future effect. The employer has filed Special Civil Application No. 13611 of 2006 challenging the said award whereby the employer was directed to reinstate the workman. The respondent-workman has filed Special Civil Application No. 2592 of 2006 challenging the imposition of penalty and non grant of back- wages.

The respondent-workman was serving as Conductor with the petitioner employer. On 21st December 1995 on a surprising checking it was found that certain irregularities were committed by respondent workmen. Though fares were collected, he had not issued tickets to the passengers. A chargesheet was issued to him followed a departmental inquiry and ultimately the respondent-workmen came to be dismissed from service. Thereafter an approval application was moved before the Industrial Tribunal for confirmation of dismissal wherein the Industrial Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award.

According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner-employer, the Industrial Tribunal ought not to have directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent-workman inasmuch as there are about 10 defaults on the part of the respondent workman and when there was loss of revenue due to the misappropriation by the workman, he should not be continued in service.

On the contrary learned Advocate for the respondent workman submitted that there is clear breach of conditions of provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act inasmuch as when the authority refuse to grant approval it follows that the employee continues to be in service as if the order of discharge or dismissal never has been passed and the employee is eligible to get full wages for the interim period. He further submitted that there was no reason for imposition of any penalty upon the respondent employee.

Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the relevant documents on record, I am of the view that while considering the application for approval, it was not open to the Industrial Tribunal to substitute the penalty. The Tribunal ought to have accepted or rejected the application. Therefore I am of the view that the matter is required to be reconsidered.

In the premises aforesaid, the judgment and award impugned in the petitions is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for consideration afresh as to whether the approval application is required to be allowed or rejected. The Industrial Tribunal shall hear and decide the matter within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.