1. This petition is directed against the award dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Industrial Court, Bhavnagar in reference (IT) No. 109/2000 whereby the Industrial Court has quashed and set aside the punishment order dated 06.08.1998 and directed the petitioner to pay all consequential and resultant benefits to the respondent workman.
2. According to the corporation, the respondent was an employee working as a driver. On 24.09.1995, while on duty, the S.T. Bus which was being driven by the respondent dashed with a cycle as a result of which the cyclist expired .
2.1 In respect of the said charge, departmental inquiry was held against the driver while following the principles of natural justice and thereafter by order dated 31.12.1997, punishment of placing the respondent workman on his original pay scale was imposed. Against the said order the respondent employee preferred departmental appeal which was partly allowed vide order dated 06.08.1998 and the punishment of placing the respondent on basic scale was substituted with punishment of stoppage of five increments with future effect.
2.2 The respondent employee challenged the same before the Industrial Court. The Court after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Ms. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Industrial Court has not considered the fact that the petitioner corporation has incurred huge financial loss due to the misconduct of the respondent workman. She submitted that the respondent had committed almost 15 defaults by the time he superannuated. She submitted that looking to the gravity of offence where the cyclist expired, this Court may impose some punishment on the respondent workman instead of allowing him to go scott- free.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the award of the Industrial Court and the evidence available on record. The appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the competent authority for the misconduct is on higher side and, therefore, modified the same by imposing penalty of stoppage of five increments with future effect.
4.1 The Industrial Court has gone into the details of the case and has come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the authorities was not in accordance with law. This court is of the view that considering the impact of the accident some punishment ought to have been imposed upon the employee by the Industrial Court so as to have a deterrent effect on the employee and similarly situated people. In that view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the order of the Industrial Court is required to be modified by imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect which shall meet the ends of justice.
5. In the premises aforesaid, petition is partly allowed. Punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect shall be imposed upon the respondent employee. The award of the Industrial Court is modified accordingly. Accordingly, the legal dues permissible and admissible to the respondents shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ of the order of this Court. It is clarified that at the time of substitution of penalty of dismissal by stoppage of five increments by the first appellate authority, backwages was not granted and therefore the respondent workman shall not be entitled to any backwages. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) divya