1.0 This petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 14th July 2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.13/2002 whereby the punishment of placing the respondent-workman on 3 stages below with permanent effect has been set aside.
2.0 The respondent workman has filed Reference contending that he was working since 14 years as a driver and on 6.10.1995 after departmental inquiry a punishment order of stoppage of one increment with future effect has been passed. The Reviewing Authority issued show cause notice and ultimately imposed a punishment of placing the respondent three stages below on his pay scale with permanent effect.
3.0 Therefore the respondent workman has filed the aforesaid Reference wherein the impugned award came to be passed.
4.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that when checking was done the respondent misbehaved with the checking officers as well as checking officers. She therefore submitted that looking to the charges leveled against him the Tribunal ought not to have set aside the punishment.
5.0 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that respondent-workman has filed appeal and in the appeal, the appellate authority has reviewed the case, for which he is empowered and after issuing show cause notice the punishment order was enhanced and the respondent was put to three stages below on his pay scale. .
6.0 Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is warranted.
7.0 Heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties and perused the relevant papers. It is an admitted fact that the Conductor has not issued the tickets of four passengers in spite of the fact that he collected the fare. At the time of checking by the checking squad, instead of cooperating the checking squad, the respondent-workman misbehaved with the checking officers and passengers.
8.0 Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the reviewing authority has power to review the order, but that would be after issuing notice. Further, the penalty should be in consonance with the gravity of the allegation made against the workman. In the present case the Reviewing Authority ought to have imposed some punishment upon the respondent workman looking to the nature of allegations made against him. At the same time placing him three stages below with permanent effect is too harsh. On the facts of the case I am of the view that interest of justice would be met by restoring the punishment imposed by the first authority i.e. stoppage of one increment with future effect.
9.0 Accordingly the punishment imposed by the first authority is restored i.e. punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect. The impugned award is substituted accordingly. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top