Gujarat High Court
Maksud Abdulkayam Gatli vs S.T. Corporation on 24 January, 2024
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/47/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 47 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12594 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 47 of 2024
==========================================================
MAKSUD ABDULKAYAM GATLI
Versus
S.T. CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ABHA B MAKWANA(3025) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 24/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr.Abha Makwana for the
appellant - original petitioner.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of
the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order of
learned single Judge dated 3.7.2018 whereby Special Civil
Application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.
3. What was challenged in the writ petition by the
petitioner was the judgment and order of Industrial Tribunal,
Vadodara, dated 30.9.2014 in Reference (IT) No.13 of 2012
whereby the reference was rejected. The appellant workman
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/47/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
had invoked the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal seeking
relief to set aside the penalty of stoppage of one yearly
increment with future effect for one year imposed against him
pursuant to the departmental proceedings.
3.1 The petitioner was a Driver working under the first-party
employer- the State Transport Corporation, who stated in his
statement of claim (Exh.7) that while he was on duty in a bus
lying between Santrampur to Surat on 8.1.2007, upon being
checked by checking party, one passenger was found to be
travelling without ticket. The appellant faced the charge that
he had created false document and submitted wrong report in
relation to the said incident. A Charge-sheet No.72 of 2007
was issued against the appellant. The departmental inquiry
culminated into the aforesaid penalty for stoppage of one
increment for one year with future effect.
3.2 While one of the aspect considered by the labour court
was the delay of five years in raising the reference, it was
observed that the charge was of misappropriation by
permitting a passenger to travel without ticket. It transpires
from the record that the passenger was permitted to travel
without ticket who was a religious leader and was in relation
of the appellant. The Industrial Tribunal held that the inquiry
was legal and valid.
3.3 It was further recorded that the workman had admitted
his guilt. The contention was rightly negatived by the
Industrial Tribunal that mere non-examination of the reporter
would not render the inquiry and the penalty illegal, once the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/47/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
other evidence and the admission of the workman himself
would lead to proof of the charges. The penalty imposed was
of stoppage of one increment.
4. Not only that, on a closer reading of the impugned
judgment and order of learned single Judge, what was argued
before learned single Judge was only about the quantum of
penalty, to submit that instead of stoppage of one increment
with future effect, it may be reduced to stoppage of one
increment without future effect.
4.1 Learned single Judge observed the said aspect in para
29 of the said order.
"The petitioner has failed to point out any error in the
award. Actually, any attempt to even contend that the
award is defective, is not made by learned advocate
for the petitioner. On the contrary, learned advocate
for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner,
requested that the penalty determined by the
employer may be reduced and it may be reduced to
stoppage of one or two increments without future
effect."
5. In view of what is discussed hereinabove, the penalty
could be said to be just and proper. Even otherwise the
inquiry was held to be in consonance with the natural justice
and no other infirmity in law was found. The imposition of
penalty is the domain of the employer. The labour court or
tribunal could not rightly interfere and interject with the
penalty aspect. Learned single Judge was therefore right in
dismissing the petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/47/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
6. No error could be booked in the judgment and order of
learned single Judge.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal stands meritless. It is
summarily dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the Appeal, the Civil Application
will not survive. It is accordingly disposed of.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
Manshi
