Back
1993 Supreme(Guj) 58
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.P.RAVANI, J.M.Panchal
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
DANAJI SUKAJI KODIYAR - Respondent
S.C.A.7847 of 1992
Decided On : 02/12/1993
Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sec. 11 A - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 227 - Power of Labour Court under Sec.11A of the Act - Appropriate relief - Petitioner found guilty of misconduct and against order of dismissal in departmental inquiry labour court on reference ordered Petitioner to be reinstated with continuity of service without backwages - Exercise of Power by Labour Court neither perverse nor unresonable - Interference refused.
In view of the settled legal position it cannot be said that the Labour Court or the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to give direction as regards reinstatement of the workman without backwages. The direction not to pay backwages would be a term and or condition on which reinstatement is directed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case this direction cannot be said to be in any way unjust, arbitrary or perverse so as to call for interference in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
[Para 10]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sec. 11A - Power to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen - Scope of - On being satisfied about the impropriety of order of discharge or dismissal - Labour Court can order reinstatement on terms and condition like non payment of backwages - Labour Court has also power to impose lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissed relying on material on record - But exercise of power to award lesser punishment non mandatory - Power is discretionary with the court.
While directing reinstatement of the workman the labour court may impose any terms or conditions. Such term or condition, may be one that the workman be not paid his backwages. The section also empowers the labour court to impose lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. However, again it may be noted that it is left to the discretion of the labour court or the Tribunal. The labour court or Tribunal may not impose lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal. In the circumstance of the case the labour court may think it proper that the agonies of the departmental inquiry and the prolonged litigation before the court may be sufficient punishment to the workman and may think that the workman be directed to be reinstated without imposition of a condition as regards backwages. Whether to award backwages or not would be a term and a condition of reinstatement. This may be taken into consideration by the labour court.
[Para 7]
( 1 ) RULE. SINCE no order adverse to the respondent-Workman is being passed it is not necessary to serve notice of rule upon him. In facts of the case the matter is ordered to be heard today.
( 2 ) THE petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the legality and validity of the award dated 13/04/1992 passed by the labour Court, Rajkot, by which the respondent-Workman has been ordered to be reinstated on his original post of Conductor with continuity of service, but without backwages. The grievance of the petitioner-Corporation is that the Labour Court has imposed no punishment on the respondent-Workman though he has been found guilty. It is submitted that withholding of entire backwages is no punishment and some punishment must have been imposed upon him by the Labour Court while exercising powers under Sec. 11- a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
( 3 ) THE respondent-Workman was serving as conductor for a period of about eleven years when he was discharged from service on 29/08/1989. It was alleged against him that on 3/03/1988 he was working as conductor on Bhuj-Nakhatrana Road in Kutch District. At that time his bus was checked and it was found that he had not issued tickets to four passengers who had boarded the bus from Loria. It was also found that two tickets were wrongly punched and other two passengers were also not issued tickets. On these allegations departmental inquiry was held and it was found that he was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. At the conclusion of the departmental inquiry he was ordered to be dismissed from service.
( 4 ) THE respondent-Workman raised industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Rajkot. The Labour Court held that having regard to the past service record of the workman and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the respondent-Workman was not justified. Therefore the labour Court, as per its award dated 13/04/1992, directed that the respondent-Workman be reinstated in service on his original post with continuity of service, but without backwages.
( 5 ) THE petitioner-Corporation has felt aggrieved by the award inasmuch as the Labour Court has imposed no punishment upon the workman. It is submitted that when the Labour Court found that the misconduct alleged against the workman was proved, some punishment must have been imposed by the Labour Court while exercising powers under Sec. 11-A of the Act. In support of this submission reliance is placed on Division bench judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8386 of 1992 (with Special Civil Application No. 8707 of 1992) decided on 22/12/1992. In that case the workman-Conductor was charged with misconduct of not issuing tickets to twelve passengers. At the conclusion of the departmental inquiry he was ordered to be dismissed from service. In reference before the Labour Court the Labour Court found that the misconduct alleged against the workman was proved, but in the opinion of the Labour Court the punishment of dismissal from service was not justified. Therefore the Labour Court directed that the workman be reinstated in service with continuity of service, but without backwages. Against this award the Corporation filed Special Civil Application No. 8386 of 1992 and the respondent-Workman also filed Special Civil Application No. 8707 of 1992 before this High Court. The Corporation prayed for some punishment to be imposed, while the workman prayed for award of backwages. This Court rejected the petition filed by the workman. While considering the contention of the Corporation that some punishment should have been imposed, this Court has made observations as follows :"having carefully gone through the award, we find that the Labour Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the misconduct was proved. However, this was the first act of misconduct on the par
