Gujarat High Court
Manager, Divisional Controller vs Fatabhai S Dabhi on 23 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7009/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7009 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 204 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MANAGER, DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Versus
FATABHAI S DABHI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARESH J BRAHMBHATT(9788) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 23/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. With the consent of parties, all matters are heard together.
2. Present petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in reference (LCA) No.2063 of Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 11:35:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7009/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined 2000 dated 03.02.2017, whereby the directions were issued to the present petitioner to pay the retiral dues to the respondent - employee.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent - workman was working as a Conductor with the petitioner - Corporation and has issued the charge-sheet in respect of the misconduct committed by him on 30.12.1991, whereby, while he was on duty at Ahmedabad, Dehgam-Bariya route, he was found intoxicated, pursuant to the complaint made by the Driver as well as the passengers of the Bus, he failed to report for his duty on time. At the end of the departmental inquiry, the concerned workman was found to be guilty and subjected to a punishment of dismissal from service. Challenging the order of dismissal, the dispute came to be raised before the Industrial Court in the year 2000, which was registered being a Reference (LCA) No. 2063 of 2000. Learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence placed on record, has passed an award on 03.02.2017, partly allowing the reference and directing the present petitioner to pay all benefits to the workman till the date of retirement, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 11:35:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7009/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Munshaw for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt for the respondent No.1.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that the reference was filed after the period of 8 years challenging the termination dated 14.12.1992. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that the departmental inquiry was initiated and the legality and validity of the inquiry was not challenged by filing the application below Exh.20. However, considering the age of the respondent - employee, the learned Reference Court has directed the petitioner to pay the retiral dues. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw further submits that for ascertaining the said fact, learned Reference Court has recorded incorrect reasons that in the year 1992, when the termination order was passed, the age was of 56 years and in the year 2002, he had attained the age of 58 years and therefore, the order of partly allowing the reference came to be passed. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that it was not the question of only 2 years of service as observed by the learned Reference Court, by granting the retiral dues benefit of 10 years of service was granted in favour of the respondent, therefore, impugned order deserves to be interfered with and Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 11:35:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7009/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined the petition is required to be allowed.
6. As against the same, learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt appearing for the respondent - workman has submitted that the respondent has served as a Conductor with the petitioner - Corporation since last 26 years. On the day when the misconduct was alleged i.e 30.12.1991, the respondent has requested to grant the leave on the ground of sickness. However, due to shortage of staff, the leave was not sanctioned and when he went to carry his tiffin at canteen , the doctor has advised him to take the medicine, which was taken by him and on feeling the uneasiness, he could not report for the duty in time. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt submits that the charge of intoxication was not proved before the Criminal Court. However, the petitioner - Corporation has dismissed the service for the same charge by passing an order dated 14.12.1992. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt submitted that during the pendency of the reference, the workman died, therefore, the son of the workman had come forward for evidence. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt submits that during the departmental inquiry, the reliance which was placed on the passengers' statement were not Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 11:35:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7009/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined examined neither that statement was part of the inquiry report. The departmental proceedings were concluded on sole basis of one witness, namely, Kanubhai Darji and therefore, learned Reference Court was justifying in granting the relief of retiral dues and hence, petition is not required to be entertained and the same deserved to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the parties, it emerges that the deceased respondent has served with the Corporation for the period of 26 years. During this period of 26 years, no irregularities were reported and the fact with regard to the sickness on the day when the alleged misconduct was reported, was not controverted by the petitioner - Corporation before the learned Labour Court. Explanation which was offered that due to the shortage of staff, though he was sick, his leave was not sanctioned, and he reported on duty, however, he went to collect the tiffin and has taken the tablet, which was prescribed by the Doctor and in that process, delay was caused in reporting to the duty. It is undisputed fact that no passengers were examined in the departmental proceedings and the inquiry was proceeded on Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 11:35:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7009/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined the sole basis of evidence of Kanubhai Darji who recorded the statement of passengers. It is true that in the year 1992, termination was ordered which was challenged after the delay of 8 years and as the respondent attained the age of superannuation in the year 2002, the retire benefits were awarded. This Court is of the view that instead of granting the retirement benefits, if lump-sum compensation is awarded considering the delay of 8 years in filing the reference, then ends of justice would meet.
8. Resultantly, this petition is partly allowed. Petitioner is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the full and final settlement of the award within a period of 8 weeks from today. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in Special Civil Application No.7009 of 2019.
9. In view of the above, the Special Civil Application No. 204 of 2020 is hereby rejected and disposed of accordingly. Rule discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 11:35:50 IST 2025