IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6852 of 2004 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================ EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ. CO. LTD. & 1 Petitioner(s) Versus RAGHUBA LALUBA RANA SINCE DECD.THRO'HEIRS Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MS MAYA S DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2 MR DG SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 1.5 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 13/12/2012 ORAL JUDGEMENT
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgement and award dated 22.1.2004, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Bhavnagar, in Reference (LCB) No. 368 of 2001, whereby the Industrial Court has partly allowed the said reference and directed the petitioner Board to reinstate the respondentworkman in service with continuity of service but without back wages.
2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the respondentworkman was serving as Meter Reader with the petitionerBoard. It is the case of the petitioner that on 1.3.2001 the respondentworkman came to the office of Deputy Superintendent, City Division, Bhavnagar and started quarrel with the Officer of the Board and abused the Officer and thereafter had beaten the Officer of the Board.
2.1. Thereafter, on 03.03.2001 the respondentworkman had given chargesheet and after holding departmental inquiry, vide order 30.4.2001, the respondentworkman was dismissed from the service. Being Aggrieved by the action of the petitioner Board, the respondentworkman filed reference being Reference (LCB) No.368 of 2001 before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 22.01.2004 partly allowed the said reference and directed the petitionerBoard to reinstate the respondentworkman in service with continuity of service but without back wages. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal without looking to the misconduct of the respondentworkman of abusing and beating the superior officer, has passed the award and directed the petitionerBoard to reinstate the respondentWorkman. He further contended that the Tribunal has committed error in setting aside the punishment order.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondentWorkman has died on 15th February, 2010 and in pursuance of the order passed in Civil Application the respondentworkman was paid the benefit of 17(B). He further submitted that the order of reinstatement with continuity of service may be allowed till the death of the deceasedemployee i.e. respondent No.3.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. It appears from the record that no final inquiry report has been placed on record by th petitionerBoard and in such circumstance, it is very difficult for this Court to reverse the finding of the Tribunal. However, keeping in mind the fact that the respondentworkman has expired, I am of the view that sympathetic view should be taken in such case.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that if the award of the Tribunal is modified the same would meet the ends of justice. Therefore the order of the Tribunal granting reinstatement with continuity of service is confirmed up to the death of the respondentworkman i.e. 15th February, 2010. The rest of the award remain unaltered. The judgement and award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The benefits arising out of this order shall be paid to the legal heirs of respondentworkman within a period of three months from today. The petition is partly allowed.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.) pawan