Gujarat High Court
S.T. Karmachari Union Through Gajubha ... vs Divisional Controller on 4 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12681/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12681 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
S.T. KARMACHARI UNION THROUGH GAJUBHA KHUMANSINH
VACHHANI (WORKMAN)
Versus
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PARESH J BRAHMBHATT(9788) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 04/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the award dated
12.03.2020 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal,
Vadodara in Reference (IT) No.296 of 2010, whereby
while setting aside the order of punishment, the learned
Tribunal declined the relief of arrears and directed that
the interregnum period be considered only for notional
benefits.
2 The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was
serving as a Conductor with the respondent-Corporation
since 1991. On 15.05.2002, while discharging his duties
on the route from Vadodara to Piludara under Padra
Depot, a checking squad boarded the bus at Dabhasa
and opined that the petitioner had failed to issue tickets
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12681/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
to a group of three passengers despite having collected
fare from them, thereby allegedly misappropriating the
Corporation's funds.
2.1 Pursuant thereto, a chargesheet was issued, and a
departmental inquiry was conducted. Upon conclusion
of the inquiry, the petitioner was imposed with the
punishment of withholding four increments with future
effect by order dated 31.07.2002. The petitioner's
departmental appeal came to be rejected on
31.03.2004.
2.2 Challenging the said punishment, the petitioner
raised an industrial dispute, which culminated in
Reference (IT) No.296 of 2010 before the learned
Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara. The learned Tribunal,
while allowing the Reference, set aside the
punishment order but declined to grant monetary
benefits for the interregnum period, directing instead
that the said period be treated only for notional
benefits. The present petition is, therefore, filed
assailing the said award to the extent it denies
monetary benefits.
3 Heard the learned advocate Mr.Paresh Brahmbhatt for
the petitioner and the learned advocate Mr.H.C.Naidu for
the respondent.
4 Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt has submitted that the
learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in declining
the monetary benefits despite having held that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12681/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
departmental inquiry and the consequential punishment
were illegal and unsustainable. He submits that the
learned Tribunal has erroneously denied the arrears
merely on the ground of delay of seven years in raising
the Reference.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt further submits
that the aspect of delay cannot deprive the workman
of his rightful monetary benefits once the foundation
of the punishment itself has been held to be non-
existent. In support of his submission, he has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.768 of
2017, wherein it has been held that when the
punishment order is found to be illegal, the delay in
raising the industrial dispute cannot be a ground to
deny consequential arrears and benefits.
4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt further submits
that the learned Tribunal, without properly
appreciating the aforesaid legal position, has erred in
denying the monetary benefits to the petitioner, and
hence, the impugned award deserves to be quashed
and set aside to that extent.
5 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Naidu has opposed the
petition and submitted that the petitioner had accepted
the statements of the passengers recorded on the spot
and had also admitted his signature thereon. Learned
advocate Mr. Naidu further submits that the impugned
award dated 12.03.2020 came to be challenged after an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12681/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
inordinate delay of two years, and that too, after the
petitioner had accepted and derived benefits pursuant to
the said award, including fresh pay fixation.
5.1 It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr.
Naidu that all consequential benefits were extended to
the petitioner in accordance with the award passed by
the learned Tribunal on 20.10.2020, and therefore,
having accepted and acted upon the same, the
petitioner is estopped from challenging the award at
this belated stage. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu,
therefore, submits that the petition lacks merit and is
required to be dismissed.
6 Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and on
perusal of the record, it emerges that the learned
Tribunal has categorically held that the charge levelled
against the petitioner was not proved and, accordingly,
the punishment imposed upon him was set aside. It is an
admitted position that the said award passed by the
learned Tribunal has not been challenged by the
respondent-Corporation, and pursuant thereto, all
consequential benefits, including pay fixation, have been
extended to the petitioner.
6.1 The only ground assigned by the learned Tribunal
for denying the monetary benefits for the interregnum
period is the alleged delay of seven years in raising
the dispute. The learned Tribunal has placed reliance
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12681/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sapan Kumar Pandit v.
U.P. State Electricity Board and Others, reported in (2001)
6 SCC 222. On referring the said decision it emerges that, the
case before the Apex Court was of the employee, who has
terminated and raised dispute after the delay of 18 years. That
the Apex Court has held that the relief could be molded while
entertaining the dispute however, in the present case the
petitioner has worked continuously and there was no question of
any idle wages. In that background, the said decision would
irrelevant in the present case.
6.2 In the considered view of this Court, once the
punishment imposed upon the petitioner has been held to
be illegal, the learned Tribunal ought to have directed
payment of monetary benefits for the interregnum period
instead of granting only notional benefits. The mere delay
in raising the dispute, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny
such benefits when the very foundation of the punishment
has been declared unsustainable in law. In that view of the
matter, the impugned award, to the extent it denies
monetary benefits to the petitioner, deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
7 Resultantly, this petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed.
The impugned judgment and award dated 12.03.2020 passed
by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT)
No.296 of 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The
respondent-authority is directed to pay all the consequential
monetary benefits and arrears to the petitioner towards the
losses suffered, as expeditiously as possible.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
