By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and award of the Labour Court, Rajkot, passed in LCR No. 139 of 2004 on 7.6.2007 whereby the Labour Court has allowed the Reference partly and directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman to his original post with continuity of services without backwages. The order dated 8.9.2000 passed by the authority of stoppage of increment for one year without future effect was confirmed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as conductor. When the checking squad carried out check, certain financial irregularities committed by the workman were noticed. He collected fare from the passengers without issuing tickets. Chargesheet was served to the workman. After holding Departmental Inquiry, penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect was imposed upon the workman vide order dated 8.9.2000. Against the said order, appeal was preferred by the workman. The appellate authority enhanced the penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect to dismissal from service vide order dated 9.5.2002. The respondent workman filed Second Appeal before the appellate authority which is pending. In the meanwhile, Reference was filed before the Labour Court, Rajkot, against the dismissal order of the appellate authority.
3. The Labour Court, Rajkot, passed the order as aforesaid. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that looking to the serious charges of collecting charges and not issuing tickets, the Labour Court has committed error in directing to reinstate the workman to his original post with continuity of services without backwages and imposing stoppage one increment without future effect in spite of 17 defaults.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent workman has contended that the respondent has retired and there are 16 defaults prior to this incident. In that view of the matter, the order of the Labour Court is just and proper.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Keeping in mind the defaults committed by the workman, while exercising power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court has committed error in imposing lesser punishment of stoppage of increment for one year. However, the order regarding reinstatement of workman with continuity of service without backwages is just and proper but penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect is on the lower side. Keeping in view the defaults committed by the workman, I am of the view that ends of justice will meet if penalty of stoppage of three increments with future effect is imposed upon the workman.
7. Accordingly, the order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement of the workman with continuity of services without backwages is confirmed but penalty of stoppage of three increments with future effect is imposed upon the workman. To that effect, the order of the Labour Court is modified. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
8. The effect of this order will be implemented within six months and the workman will be given retirement benefits accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (pkn)