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
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.
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
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
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
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
