Gujarat High Court
S. T. Division Office vs Secretary, Gujarat Rajya S. T. ... on 8 March, 2022
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/20829/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20829 of 2017
================================================================
S. T. DIVISION OFFICE
Versus
SECRETARY, GUJARAT RAJYA S. T. KARMACHARI MAHAMANDAL, & 1
other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJESH CHAUHAN for 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
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 08/03/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution
of India is filed against judgment and award dated 08.07.2016,
published on 23.08.2016, passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
Vadodara in Reference (IT) No.531 of 2013.
2. It is the case of the petitioner-Corporation that the
respondent-workman was issued with the charge sheet on the
ground of unauthorized absenteeism and departmental inquiry was
initiated. As the workman did not remain present in the inquiry, by
order dated 26.06.2008, the respondent-workman was issued
punishment order by placing him in his original pay scale.
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the Tribunal ought to
have considered the fact that the dispute was raised after an
C/SCA/20829/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/03/2022
inordinate delay of 5 years. It is submitted that the Tribunal has
entered into the facts of the case as if the Tribunal is sitting in
appeal over the findings of the Inquiry Officer and thereby
substituted its own findings.
2.2 It is submitted that the Tribunal has arrived at a
conclusion, however, there is no evidenciary background for
arriving at such a conclusion. It is submitted that the petitioner
had undertaken the inquiry proceedings in accordance with law by
affording opportunity of hearing and therefore, the order passed by
the petitioner-Corporation cannot be faulted with.
3. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent-
workman submitted that the punishment inflicted by the petitioner-
Corporation was highly disproportionate as compared to the
alleged misconduct, even if proved. It is a case where absenteeism
of the respondent-workman was only for a few days and for that
too, the respondent-workman had given proper explanation
substantiated by documentary evidence regarding medical ground
for which the respondent-workman was prevented from attending
duties.
4. Having considered the rival submissions of learned
Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record,
it appears that it is a case where the respondent-workman was
working as a driver with the petitioner-Corporation. On account of
C/SCA/20829/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/03/2022
unauthorized absenteeism, the respondent-workman was issued
with the charge sheet and on account of the charges, order of
punishment was passed on 26.06.2008 by which the respondent-
workman was placed back to his original pay scale. Second show
cause notice was issued before inflicting punishment, but the
respondent-workman choose not to remain present and hence,
punishment was inflicted.
5. It appears that the respondent-workman filed first
departmental appeal, which also came to be rejected and it is
thereafter that the respondent-workman preferred Reference (IT)
No.531 of 2013 before the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara. The
statement of claim came to be filed vide Exh.8 and the Presiding
Officer of the Industrial Tribunal passed impugned award dated
08.07.2016 by placing the respondent-workman on his original pay
scale with all consequential benefits.
6. From the record, it appears that considering the facts
on record, the Tribunal has concluded that during the departmental
inquiry, the only witnesses whose statements were recorded were
interested witnesses and therefore, based on the statement of such
interested witnesses alone, the respondent-workman was held to be
guilty of the misconduct. The Tribunal also took into consideration
the fact that the absenteeism was on two occasions for a period
between 23.04.2006 to 24.04.2006 and thereafter on 28.04.2006 to
16.05.2006, which comes to total 20 days. The Tribunal has also
C/SCA/20829/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/03/2022
taken into consideration the medical certificate which was
produced as a part of evidence to indicate health condition of the
respondent-workman to justify his absence from duty. Treating
such evidences to be sufficient to justify absence, punishment was
set aside by the Tribunal. The list of such documents is also placed
before this Court by learned Advocate for the respondent-workman,
perusal of which and comparing chronology of medical certificates
justifies the findings of the Tribunal.
7. In the opinion of the Court, the judgment and award of
the Industrial Tribunal is based on sound reasonings and evidence
placed before the Tribunal and does not require any interference.
The petition therefore deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
SHITOLE
