Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

State Road Transport Corporation vs Dhirajlal M Parmar C/O K C on 7 January, 2013

Author: K.S.Jhaveri

Bench: Ks Jhaveri

  
	 
	 STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION....Petitioner(s)V/SDHIRAJLAL M PARMAR C/O K C SHAH....Respondent(s)
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 


	C/SCA/10905/2008
	                                                                    
	                           JUDGEMNT

 

 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

IN
			THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
		
	

 


 


 


SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION  NO. 10905 of 2008
 


 


 

 

 

FOR
APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: 

 

 

 

 

 

HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
 

 

 

================================================================
 

 


 
	  
	 
	 
	  
		 
			 

1    
			
			
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	
	 
		 
			 

2    
			
			
		
		 
			 

To
			be referred to the Reporter or not ?
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	
	 
		 
			 

3    
			
			
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	
	 
		 
			 

4    
			
			
		
		 
			 

Whether
			this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
			interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
			made thereunder ?
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	
	 
		 
			 

5    
			
			
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

 

			
		
	

 

================================================================
 


STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION....Petitioner(s)
 


Versus
 


DHIRAJLAL M PARMAR C/O K C
SHAH....Respondent(s)
 

================================================================
 

Appearance:
 

MR
RITURAJ M MEENA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
 

MR
RUTVIJ M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
 

================================================================
 

 


 


	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM:
				
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
			
		
	

 


 

 


Date : 07/01/2013
 


 

 


ORAL JUDGMENT

The petitioner has, by way of this petition, challenged the judgement and award dated 1.8.2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, in Reference (IT) No. 140 of 2003 whereby the Tribunal substituted the punishment of stoppage of four increments with permanent effect to stoppage of four increments without permanent effect.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent was working as Driver. He came to the depot under the influence of psychotropic substance and abused the other employees and the Manager of the petitioner Corporation. Against the alleged misconduct of the respondent, on 22.9.1993 chargesheet was issued to him. After following the principles of natural justice, the petitioner, by order dated 30.9.1994, imposed penalty of stoppage of four increments with permanent effect on the respondent. Against the said order, First Appeal and Second Appeal were filed by the respondent workman which were dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent workman raised industrial dispute which was referred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the Reference and reduced the penalty to stoppage of four increments without permanent effect. Hence the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent was a driver. He came in the depot in drunken condition. A criminal complaint was filed against him. Looking to his past record, he has committed defaults. Therefore, the authority has rightly imposed penalty of stoppage of four increments with permanent effect. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to stoppage of four increments without permanent effect. Hence, the order of the Tribunal reducing the penalty is required to be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the Tribunal and contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. No interference is called for by this Court with the same.

5. I have heard learned advocates for both the sides. Considering the misconduct of the respondent workman, the penalty imposed by the Tribunal is on a lower side. The workman has committed 12 defaults in the past. In my view, the ends of justice will be met if penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect is imposed on the respondent workman.

6. In the result, the petition is allowed partly. Penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect is imposed on the respondent workman instead of penalty of stoppage of four increments without permanent effect as made by the Tribunal. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. The implementation of the order will be effected within six months from today.

(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (pkn) Page 3 of 3