1. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that an endeavour was made to get the matter adjourned on one pretext or the other. Mr. Vyas sought time in the morning stating that Mr. Brahmbhatt is appearing before another court other than High Court. This matter has been time and again adjourned on one ground or the other. The termination is of the year 1995 and almost 17 years have passed thereafter. Therefore this Court is not inclined to grant any further adjournment.
2. The petitioner herein has prayed to quash and set aside the award dated 11.10.2010 passed by Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (LCG) No. 251 of 1997 whereby the reference was rejected.
3. It is the case of the petitioner-workman that in the year 1995 when he was working at Godhra Depot of the respondent Corporation, a charge sheet came to be issued against the petitioner by Divisional Traffic Officer (Default)for the offences of remaining absent without permission and misappropriation of funds as shown in clause 12A, 22 & 38 shown in Schedule A of the discipline and appeal rules of respondent corporation. Thereafter, departmental inquiry was held and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which was replied to by the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that finally vide order dated 09.09.1995 the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Assistant Administrative Officer. The said termination order is impugned in the present petition.
4. Mr. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Brahmbhatt for the petitioner submitted that the Labur Court ought to have appreciated that the statements of depot clerks were not recorded in presence of the petitioner and that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine them during inquiry. He submitted that the respondent authorities did not give ample time to submit his reply and therefore the petitioner did not get sufficient time and opportunity to defend his case. He also submitted that the charges of misappropriation and unauthorized absence are not proved and therefore the penalty imposed is grossly disproportionate.
5. Mr. Hardik Rawal, learned advocate appearing for the respondent corporation supported the award passed by the Labour Court and submitted that the same is just and proper.
6. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record. A perusal of the award shows that both the sides have agreed before the Labour Court to exercise powers under Section 11A. Therefore the contention regarding improper second show cause notice and departmental inquiry is contrary to law inasmuch as both the parties have agreed that departmental proceedings are just and proper. The labour court was to decide only the issue of penalty. Therefore, the contention raised before this Court regarding improper procedure carried out before issuance of termination order is contrary to record. No such contention was taken up before the labour court. Only powers under Section 11A was requested to be exercised.
7. Even otherwise, looking to the gravity of offence of unauthorized leave and misappropriation of funds by a government employee, this Court is not inclined to cause any interference. This Court is in complete agreement with the award passed by the labour court. Petition is, therefore, devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//