1.0 Though served, none appears for the respondent.
2.0 The petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 04.08.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Complaint ( I.T.) No. 43 of 1996 in Reference ( I.T.) No. 433 of 1992 partly allowing the complaint and setting aside the order dated 06.03.1996 passed by the Petitioner Transport Service stopping an increment with future effect and directing that due to change in punishment the respondent employee is not to be paid any amount of difference till the date of the order.
2.1 According to the petitioner, the respondent is working as Driver with Badge No. 455. On 26. 07. 1995, when he was on duty he committed serious misconducts. On 06.03.1996, the respondent employee was therefore, issued chargesheet and departmental inquiry was initiated and he was found guilty and order of stoppage of one increment with future effect was passed on 06.03.1996.
2.2 Thereafter respondent employee being aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.1996 filed a complaint being Complaint ( I.T.) No. 43 of 1996 before the Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad. Ultimately, on 04.08.2003, the Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad partly allowed the complaint and set aside the order dated 06.03.1996 passed by the petitioner Transport Service stopping an increment with future effect and ordered to stop an increment of the respondent employee without future effect and directed that the due to change in the punishment the respondent employee is not to be paid any amount of difference till the date of the order.
3.0 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that learned Industrial Tribunal has no powers to substitute the penalty imposed upon the employee by the employer after the employee has been found guilty in the inquiry initiated against him and such penalty cannot be said to be the change in conditions of service.
4.0 Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. It is alleged that the respondent employee abused filthy language in public in presence of female employee. The respondent has not produced any evidence to support his case. After considering the evidence against the respondent employee, charge was proved and second show cause notice was issued to the respondent employee. Looking to the misconduct on the part of the respondent, the punishment imposed by the petitioner is just and proper. In fact this court finds that the punishment imposed by the Tribunal is too lenient and not in consonance with the gravity of the misconduct. Having considered the matter at length, I am of the view that imposition of penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect would meet the ends of justice.
5.0 Accordingly, a punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect shall be imposed upon the respondent. The judgement and award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
6.0 The imposition of penalty shall be effected from the date of original penalty imposed by the employer. The aforesaid award shall be implemented within a period of six months from today.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*