IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12786 of 2012 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 ?
================================================================ SIDDHRAJSINH DHIRUBHAI GOHIL Petitioner(s) Versus DIVISION CONTROLLER Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR GAURAV CHUDASAMA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK C RAWAL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 26/12/2012 ORAL JUDGEMNT
1. Rule. Mr. Hardik Rawal , learned advocate appearing for the respondent corporation waives service of notice of Rule. With the consent of the parties matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2. The petitioner herein has prayed to quash and set aside the award dated 03.03.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference LCV No. 231 of 2006 whereby the respondent was directed to pay all retirement benefits within a period of 30 days from the date of award.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working with the respondent corporation as a conductor. During the course of his duty, the petitioner was alleged to have indulged in tampering with the tickets. A departmental inquiry was initiated and on completion the petitioner was terminated from service. The same was challenged before the first appellate authority. Thereafter, the reference was referred to the Labour Court, Vadodara. The labour court after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid order. Hence the present petition is preferred.
4. Mr. Chudasama, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the labour court has erred in not granting backwages by considering continuous service. He submitted that the petitioner superannuated in the year 2008. He submitted that petitioner had established that the respondent authority had held departmental inquiry on the baseless reasons and even then the Labour Court granted only the retirement benefits by considering continuous service and did not grant reinstatement.
5. Mr. Rawal, learned advocate appearing for the respondent corporation supported the award passed by the Labour Court and submitted that there was a delay in preferring reference before the Labour Court. He submitted that considering the evidence on record the Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned award.
6. This court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record. The labour court in the impugned award has given reasons for passing the award. The fact that the petitioner had superannuated in the year 2008 has weighed with the Labour Court. The Labour Court has found that the inquiry was perverse and the punishment imposed was on a higher side. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court thought it fit to grant retirement benefits taking into note continuity of service for that purpose. No infirmity is found in the impugned award. The petitioner was negligent in his duties. Moreover, the reference was filed after a period of almost 13 years. No plausible explanation was given for the same. In that view of the matter, the award does not call for any interference by this Court.
7. In the premises aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. The award of the Labour Court is confirmed. The award of the Labour Court shall be complied within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ of the order of this court. Rule is discharged.
divya (K.S.JHAVERI, J.)