(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. Rajesh C. Kakkad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant – original petitioner challenging the judgment dated 27.9.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.13043 of 2012 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and affirmed the award dated 10.5.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (I.T.) No.264 of 1997.
3. The respondent – workman was initially appointed as Peon. By order dated 31.7.1986, he was promoted as Case Writer in the pay scale of Rs.210-4-250-EB-5-270 on probation for a period of two years. Thereafter, by order dated 5.12.1986, the respondent – workman was reverted to the post of Peon. The respondent raised industrial dispute being Reference (I.T.) No.264 of 1997 challenging the order of reversion. The Industrial Tribunal allowed the reference by award dated 10.5.2012 on the ground that the respondent – workman was reverted without issuance of show- cause notice or granting him an opportunity of hearing.
4. The appellant – University challenged the order of the Tribunal by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.13043 of 2012. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 27.9.2012 and affirmed the award on the ground that the order of the Tribunal was not ex-parte as the counsel for the appellant appeared before the Tribunal and has filed written statement. However, inspite of several opportunities granted to the appellant, the University did not choose to lead any evidence.
Therefore, on 21.2.2012, the right of the appellant to lead evidence was closed and thereafter, the Tribunal has decided the matter. So far as the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to try the dispute was concerned, the University could not substantiate its argument. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the findings of the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal or perverse or erroneous. The University has partly defended the matter before the Tribunal and has failed to produce any iota of evidence and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly allowed the reference.
5. We are of the opinion that neither the Tribunal nor the learned Singe Judge committed any error of law in allowing the claim of the respondent – workman. No interference is called for in both the impugned orders of the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
6. In view of dismissal of appeal, Civil Application for stay does not survive and it is accordingly dismissed.
[V. M. SAHAI, J.] [G. B. SHAH, J.] Savariya