Gujarat High Court
Vankar R.R. vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 29 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)IIILLJ191GUJ
Author: G.S. Singhvi
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Anant S. Dave
ORDER G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent for setting aside order dated March 6, 2002 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1081 of 2002, whereby, he quashed award dated February 20, 2001 passed by the Labour Court No. 3, Vadodara, in Reference No. 109 of 1999.
The facts:
2. The Appellant joined service of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') as Conductor. On October 3, 1995, the line checking squad, S.T. Vadodara, found that while he was on duty on Chhota Udaipur to Kanavat route, the Appellant had taken money from three passengers but had not issued tickets. On receipt of the report of the checking squad, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the Appellant. The Enquiry Officer returned the finding of guilt. Thereafter, Divisional Traffic Superintendent (city)-cum-Competent Authority (hereinafter described as the Disciplinary Authority) issued notice to the appellant proposing his dismissal from service. The latter filed reply to contest the notice. He pleaded that the allegation levelled against him, was not correct and that the fares could not be collected from the passengers because they were in a state of intoxication. After considering his reply, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated September 27, 1996 imposed the penalty of reduction to the basic of his pay-scale on the appellant.
3. The appellant challenged the order of punishment by raising an industrial dispute through Gujarat Kamdar Seva Sangatan, Vadodara. The Competent Authority made reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was registered as Reference No. 109/99. By an award dated February 20, 2001 Industrial Court No. 3, Vadodara quashed the order of punishment. For this purpose, the learned Presiding Officer invoked Section 11A of the Act.
4. The learned single Judge allowed Special Civil Application No. 1081 of 2002 filed by the Corporation and quashed the award by observing that the Industrial Court did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Section 11A of the Act which was invoked by the Industrial Court for setting aside the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority reads as under:
"11-A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.- Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require:
Provided that in any proceeding under this Section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter."
A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced provision make it clear that a Labour Court, Tribunal and National Tribunal can interfere with the punishment imposed by the employer only in the cases of discharge or dismissal. The use of the expression "relating to the discharge, or dismissal of a workman" clearly shows that the Legislature intended to confer the appellant jurisdiction upon the Labour Court, Tribunal and National Tribunal only in the matters involving discharge or dismissal of a workman. To put it differently, the Labour Court etc. cannot exercise power under Section 11A of the Act in the cases in which the employer imposes a penalty on the workman otherwise than by way of discharge or dismissal. In this view of the matter it must be held that by interfering with the punishment of reduction to the basic of his pay-scale imposed on the appellant, the Industrial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and the learned single Judge rightly quashed the award passed by it.
6. Notwithstanding the aforementioned conclusion, we have scanned through the entire record for a purpose of finding out, whether the proceedings of enquiry are vitiated due to violation of rules of natural justice or that the punishment imposed by the employer is arbitrary. It is not in dispute that the order of punishment was preceded by issuance of charge-sheet to the appellant containing allegation that he had misappropriated the amount of rare collected from three passengers. The Enquiry Officer, after recording evidence of the parties returned the finding that the charge levelled against the appellant has been proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice. The appellant filed reply. This was followed by the order of punishment. The Industrial Court did not find any infirmity in the proceedings of the enquiry. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the enquiry held against the appellant was vitiated due to violation of rules of natural justice and, on that account, the award of the Industrial Court should be sustained.
7. We also agree with the learned single Judge that in such like matters the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal should be loath to interfere with the discretion exercised by the employer in the matter of imposition of punishment.
8. No other point has been argued.
9. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed.