GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. ATI JAKHU MAHESHWARI

(cid:9)The Labour Court having considered the evidence on record has not believed the defence put forth by the workman as regards the six passengers travelling without tickets. The Labour Court has held that, `the workman's negligence in not issuing tickets to six passengers is established'. However, the guilt of the workman in not issuing the ticket to one passenger from whom he was alleged to have recovered the fare of Re.0=25 paise was not established. The Labour Court also considered the past records of the workman which discloses as many as forty four punishments - ranging from `Warning' and `Censure' to `Fine' and `Withholding of increments' for various acts of misconduct. However, considering the eleven years' long service of the workman, the Labour Court considered it expedient to interfere with the order of dismissal, in exercise of the powers under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Consequently, the Court set-aside the order of dismissal and by way of punishment, awarded only 50% of the back wages. (cid:9)It appears that the Court has awarded 50% of the back wages by way of punishment ie., otherwise the workman would have been awarded full back wages. I am unable to agree with the reasonings adopted by the Court below. Having held the negligence of the workman proved and having considered the past service record of the workman, which is far from being commendable, the Court could not have allowed the workman to go scotfree ie., the Labour Court has not imposed any punishment upon the deliquent workman though the imputation of charge made against him had been held to have been proved. Further, the workman has been awarded premium by awarding the back wages to the extent of 50%, though admittedly he was out of service. Besides, not awarding the full amount of back wages cannot be said to be a `punishment'.

(cid:9)I am informed that the award of the Labour court has been partially implemented to the extent that the workman has been reinstated in service. On the earlier occasion, Mr. Raval was specifically instructed to place on the records of the matter, the conduct of the workman after his reinstatement in service, however, the same has not been done. It is, therefore, presumed that nothing adverse has been found in the conduct of the workman, after his reinstatement in service. (cid:9)In view of the above discussion, the Special Civil Application No. 3069 of 1989 is partially allowed. The order of the Labour Court setting aside the order of punishment of dismissal imposed upon the workman is confirmed. However, the disciplinary authority shall consider the matter afresh, as far as the imposition of punishment is concerned. Keeping in view the nature of misconduct proved against the workman and his past service record, a punishment except that of termination of service [ie., dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement] be imposed upon the workman.

The award with respect to the payment of back wages is quashed and setaside. The period from the date of workman's dismissal from service till the date of reinstatement in service shall be treated as `extra ordinary leave without pay'. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. (cid:9)The Special Civil Application No. 5731 of 1989 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Parties shall bear their own costs. (cid:9)Registry shall maintain a copy of this judgement in both the petitions. (cid:9) (cid:9) [Miss R.M Doshit, J.] Prakash*