This petition had been disposed of vide order dated 12.4.2012. However, the respondent herein has filed Misc. Civil Application No. 2523 of 2012 for clarification in para 7 of the said order. After hearing the parties the said order dated 12.4.2012 has been recalled and the petition has been posted for hearing. Today after hearing the matter the following order is passed. 1.0 Rule. Learned advocates for the respective parties waive service of notice of Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2.0 This petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 14.09.2011 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in Reference (IT) No. 103 of 2008 whereby the Tribunal has set aside the penal orders passed by the petitioner Corporation for recovery of Rs.83,000/ imposed in five default cases.
3.0 The respondent was serving with the petitioner Corporation as an ArtC Mechanic. He had failed in performance of his duties resulting into break down of buses due to engine failure even after repairs and maintenance by him. Therefore several complaints were received against him. Consequently five chargesheets were issued against him and departmental inquiry was conducted. Ultimately the competent authority passed orders imposing recovery of Rs.20,000/ each in four default cases and Rs.3000/ in one default case. The respondent No.1 therefore preferred Reference (IT) No.103/2008 before the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad wherein the aforesaid order came to be passed.
4.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there were five default cases against the petitioner which were proved and there was utter negligence in performance of duty by the respondent no.1. He submitted that while exercising power under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the learned Tribunal ought to have imposed punishment.
5.0 As a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is evident that several complaints were received regarding the performance of the respondent no.1. His negligence has put the Corporation into financial loss and inconvenience. Chargesheets were issued to him and a fullfledged departmental inquiry was conducted.
6.0 Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that in five default cases the disciplinary authority has relied upon the report of the technical expert, technical defects in repair as well as the justification offered by the respondent No.1 during the inquiry. The said reliance and the conclusion thereof could not be reversed by the Tribunal in any manner and the Tribunal has not assigned any cogent reason for quashing the entire penalty. In view of the defaults, the Tribunal while exercising power under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ought to have imposed some punishment. Having considered the matter in depth, I am of the view that imposition of penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect would meet the ends of justice.
7.0 Accordingly a punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect shall be imposed upon the respondent from the date of the original penalty imposed by the petitionerCorporation. The judgement and award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The order shall be implemented within three months from today. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*