1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. HS Munshaw for the petitioner and Mr. Bhargav Hasurkar for the respondent workman.
2. By filing of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 29.06.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference I.T No. 451 of 2000 whereby the punishment order was quashed and set aside.
3. According to the corporation, the respondent was an employee with the petitioner as a driver. The respondent , while on duty on 24.06.1994, met with an accident by dashing the bus he was driving with a tree as a result of which one passenger expired and 17 others were injured. In respect of the said charge, departmental inquiry was held against the driver while following the principles of natural justice and punishment of stoppage of seven increments with future effect was imposed. Considering the punishment imposed by the corporation as being on lower side, the reviewing authority enhanced the punishment and imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect.
3.1 Against the said order the employee preferred departmental first appeal which was partly allowed vide order dated 27.03.1997 and the punishment was reduced to punishment of stoppage of five increments with future effect.
3.2 The respondent employee challenged the same by way of filing second appeal which was rejected. The said order was challenged by the respondent workman before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr. Hardik Rawal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the fact that already a lenient view was taken by the appellate authorities. He submitted that looking to the gravity of offence where one passenger expired and 17 others sustained injuries, this Court may impose some punishment on the respondent workman instead of allowing him to go scott- free.
5. Mr. Hasurkar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent workman supported the award passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the Tribunal is just and proper in passing the impugned award.
6. I have perused the materials placed on record. The appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the competent authority for the misconduct is disproportionate and on higher side and, therefore, eventually the punishment of stoppage of five increments with future effect was imposed.
6.1 The Tribunal has gone into the details of the case and has come to the conclusion that the punishment was not in accordance with law. The Tribunal has found fault with the inquiry and considering the same has quashed the punishment imposed upon the respondent workman. The default card shows that there are 9 defaults committed by the respondent workman.
6.2 This court is of the view that considering the impact of the accident some punishment 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 Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside. The order of the first appellate authority is modified by imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect.
7. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. The punishment imposed by the first appellate authority is substituted with punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect. The award of the Tribunal court is quashed and set aside. The order of the first appellate authority is modified accordingly. Accordingly, the legal dues permissible and admissible to the respondent 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. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted to both the sides.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) divya