1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Rathod for the respondent workman.
2. By filing of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Himmatnagar in Reference (LCH) No. 835 of 1996 whereby the punishment order was quashed and set aside and the petitioner is directed to pay backwages for the period 18.01.1996 to 21.09.2001 to the respondents who are the legal heirs of the deceased employee.
3. According to the corporation, the respondent was an employee working as a conductor. On 03.03.1992, the officials of the checking squad checked his bus and found that he had not issued tickets to the checking point to the passengers and that on the route from Kedva Kuva to Khedbrahma five passengers were found without tickets though the fare was already collected from them by him.
3.1 In respect of the said charge, departmental inquiry was held against the conductor while following the principles of natural justice and thereafter by order dated 30.08.1993, a punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect was passed. Against the said order the deceased employee preferred departmental first appeal and the appellate authority authority issued show cause notice to show cause as to why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed. The employee challenged the same by way of filing Reference before the Labour Court. In the meantime, the employee expired and the legal heirs were brought on record. The Labour Court after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Ms.
Mandavia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court has wrongly found that the competent authority has no power to review the order of punishment. She submitted that the labour court has wrongly held that the petitioner has not filed Approval Application at the time of passing the dismissal order.
5. I have perused the review show cause notice as well as the order passed by the Labour Court. The appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the competent authority for the misconduct is inadequate or disproportionate and, therefore, review show cause notice was issued while considering the past record as to why respondent should not be dismissed from service. Appellate authority has not come to the independent conclusion that the competent authority is wrong in imposing punishment on the workman. Reviewing authority has not discussed finding given by the competent authority but simply on the ground that the punishment imposed by the competent authority is disproportionate or inadequate and, therefore, review show cause notice was issued for enhancement thereof.
5.1 The Labour Court has gone into the details of the case and has come to the conclusion that no approval application was filed by the petitioner. This court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the labour court. However, the initial punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect ought to have been imposed upon the employee 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 labour court is required to be modified by imposing punishment as imposed by the competent authority.
6. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect shall be imposed upon the deceased employee. The award of the labour court is modified accordingly. Accordingly, the legal dues permissible and admissible to the respondents shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of two months from today. Direct service is permitted to both the sides.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top