1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
2. The petitioner, the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation —employer has approached this Court invoking provision of Article226 of Constitution of India interalia challenging the order passed by the Conciliation Officer dated 08/01/2003 rejecting the Approval Application dated 16th July, 2002 for seeking approval to the action of dismissing the respondentworkman after holding Departmental Proceedings in respect of the misconduct of collecting fare amount and not issuing ticket to the passengers.
3. The facts in brief leading to filing of this petition could be gathered from the memo and documents deserve to be set out as under:
3.1 The respondentworkman received a chargesheet on 7th June, 2001 containing allegations that on 20th May, 2001 when he was discharging his duty as “Bus Conductor” on the local route from Surendranagar to Wankaner in a bus no.3145, two irregularities were noticed namely (1) in the group of passengers travelling from Lunasar to Pooldarwaja, two passengers were not given tickets though the fare amount of Rs.14/ in total was collected and (2) in respect of other group two passengers' fare was collected, who were travelling from Bherada to Hasanpar and tickets were not issued to them. Thus, total fare of Rs.24/ was collected and tickets were not issued. The said chargesheet was replied and along with the chargesheet the passengers' statements in the form of affidavit was also produced. The inquiry ultimately culminated into order of dismissal on account of the conduct overall, as the punishment was sought to be imposed pending conciliation proceedings, the Conciliation Officer was requested to accord his approval qua the order of punishment and the Conciliation Officer after recording his reasoning came to the conclusion that there was a breach of principle of natural justice as the passengers were not examined, the cash was not checked and the Conductor was compelled to make two statements by the Reporting Officer. This order of rejecting of the approval application is made on 08/01/2003, which is subject matter before this Court.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of “Cholan Roadways Ltd. V/s. G. Thirugnanasambandam, reported in (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 241” and contended that the proceedings of approval application ought not to have been treated as fullfledged reference proceedings and the basic requirements of examining the application were ignored by the Conciliation Officer and hence, the order impugned is suffering from patent illegality and is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner without prejudice to the aforesaid contention submitted that the findings qua noncompliance of the principle of natural justice is also baseless as the reasoning for coming to the conclusion that nonexamination of passengers and/or not counting the cash was not proved by the established principle of law as a fatal to vitiate the proceedings. In support of his submissions, the counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of “Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) V/s. A.T. Mane, reported in (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 254” and submitted that the petition be allowed and the order be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned advocate for the workman contended that the approval application has rightly been rejected as the ground for rejection of approval application is in violation of principle of natural justice and the said ground is very much available to the authority while examining the approval application. The principles of natural justice were not complied with as the passengers' affidavits, which accompanied the reply to the chargesheet warranted examination of the passengers, which were not granted and nonverification of the cash also indicated that the chargesheet could not have been said to be proved on this count. Learned advocate for the respondentworkman submitted that the order impugned may not be interfered with on the aforesaid ground, that was clearly established that the principle of natural justice were violated.
7. This Court is of the considered view that the approval application has wrongly been rejected and the concerned officer had over stepped his jurisdiction conferred upon him while examining such application under the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The concerned authority could not have traveled to the extent of indepth undertaking, analysis of evidence and appreciation of evidence, as if it was holding an inquiry and/or passing judgment on the assessment of the evidence and the veracity thereof. The inquiry officer's report and the stand taken by the workman, as it is reflected therein, and the fact that till the purshis for closing of the evidence was filed, no request for calling passengers was made and mere suggestion report during the crossexamination that the passengers could be examined, would be sufficient to hold that there was lack of compliance of the principle of natural justice.
8. The Court has not adhered that the observation is made only to examine the challenge on that ground. Suffice it to say that this Court need not elaborately delve upon the aspect, and it is always open to the workman to takeout a fullfledged dispute and invite adjudication of this Court on the merits of the matter. The order impugned is therefore, in my view required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly it is quashed and set aside. It goes without saying that the workman is at liberty to raise dispute in fullfledged manner and in such a case the observations made by this Court including those on principle of natural justice, may not in any manner influence the Court and the same should be decided in accordance with law and evidence adduced on record. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Rathod..
[S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.]