Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Staet Road Transport ... vs B S Parmar on 25 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12154/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12154 of 2024
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
B S PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad (hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal") in Reference (IT) No. 5 of 2023, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference preferred by the respondent-workman and quashed and set aside the penal orders of stoppage of 8 increments with future effects, then stoppage of 6 increments with future effects and then stoppage of 4 increments with future effect, passed on 31.12.2019, 30.07.2019 and 27.10.2020 by the disciplinary authority respectively and imposing a penalty of stoppage of two increments without future effect and treating the interregnum period as notional one.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:47:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12154/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined respondent herein was an employee of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and was working as a Driver. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was on duty on 21.09.2019 and was driving S.T. Bus from Vaso to Nadiad and he drove the bus for nearly 10 kilo mts., though 5 to 6 students were standing on steps of the Bus. That, the said incident was video-graphed and published in newspaper and according to the same, it was found that the respondent was callous, ruthless, negligent in performing his duties and therefore, he was issued a charge sheet bearing No.244/10 and thereafter, a full-fledged departmental inquiry was held against him. That, the inquiry officer reported that the charges were proved and therefore, the respondent herein was imposed a penalty of stoppage of 8 increments with future effect through order dated 31.12.2019. That thereafter, the respondent preferred First as well as Second departmental appeals and the same were allowed in part and the penalty was reduced to stoppage of 6 increments with future effect and then stoppage of 4 increments with future effect. However, the respondent approached the Industrial Tribunal at Nadiad by way of filing Reference [IT] No.5 of 2023 praying to quash and set aside the penal order and release all the consequential benefits. That, the Industrial Tribunal interfered with the penalty on a ground that as there was no charge of any damage to S.T. Corporation or students, it would be appropriate to interfere with the penalty and impose a penalty of stoppage of two increments without future effect and the interregnum period should be treated as notional one vide award dated 23.01.2024.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in Reference (IT) No. 5 of 2023, the Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:47:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12154/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined petitioner-Corporation has preferred this petition.
4. Heard Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner-Corporation and Ms. Anuradha Rathod, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Munshaw has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not appreciating the fact that the respondent herein was totally irresponsible, negligent and careless in discharging his duties as a Driver by way of driving S.T. Bus for nearly 10 Kmts. with at lease 5 to 6 students standing on the foot steps of S.T. Bus, which is contrary to the policy of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation as well as R.T.O. Rules. He has submitted that the respondent had endangered the lives of the students due to his recklessness and that was a clear case of misconduct and indiscipline and therefore, he was charge-sheeted and a full-fledged inquiry was held against him, however, the Tribunal has not considered this fact that as such proved misconduct of the respondent has also brought disrepute to the Corporation. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an erred in observing that as there was no damage to petitioner- Corporation or students and, therefore, the penalty was on higher side. He has submitted that the penalty of stoppage of six increments with future effect under such circumstances was just and legal and was neither on higher side nor disproportionate to proved charges and, therefore, there was no question of interfering with it. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:47:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12154/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Mr. Munshaw has urged that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.
6. As against that, learned counsel Ms. Anuradha Rathod, appearing for the respondent-workman, has opposed the present petition and submitted that there is no any infirmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition. She has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is in consonance with the settled principles of law and is passed after following due procedure and therefore, the same is required to be confirmed and the present petition is required to be dismissed and no interference is required to be called for while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. It appears from the record that the respondent-workman, who was working as a driver with the petitioner - S.T. Corporation, had allowed maximum passenger i.e. student and he had not followed the guidelines issued by the petitioner-Corporation and therefore, a full- fledged departmental inquiry was held against him and thereafter, the respondent-workman was imposed a penalty of stoppage of 8 increments with future effect, which was reduced to stoppage of 6 increments with future effect and then stoppage of 4 increments with future effect by the disciplinary authority. Though the Tribunal has interfered with the order of imposition of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and imposed a penalty of stoppage of two Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:47:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12154/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined increments without future effect, however, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award after considering the facts of the case and seriousness of the matter. Therefore, in my opinion, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is in consonance with the settled legal principles and there is no any illegality or any infirmity committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned judgment and award and thus, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition.
8. In the result, the present petition being devoid of any merits, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:47:14 IST 2025