( 1 ) WHETHER reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment" Yes road Transport Corporation ("corporation" for short ). On 3. 5. 1990, his duty was on Surat " Mandvi road. When the bus reached between Karanj and Mandvi, checking squad of corporation checked the bus. At this time, there were 74 passengers in the bus. It was found that he had collected rs. 14/- from two passengers and had issued used tickets worth Rs. 6/- with an intention to misappropriate public money. It was also found that to two passengers who were travelling from Surat to Archena, he issued tickets worth rs. 12/- out of which, tickets worth Rs. 6/- were re-used. To a passenger, who was travelling from Kim Char Rasta to amalsadhi, after collecting the fare of Rs. 4/-, he issued ticket worth Rs. 6/- which was used in the earlier trip. Some other irregularities were also found during the checking. Therefore, he was found having misappropriated Rs. 28/- by issuing used tickets to six passengers. There was cash balance of Rs. 41-40. Consequently, he was chargesheeted on 9. 5. 1990 to which, he replied on 7. 6. 1990. Thereafter, departmental inquiry was held. He submitted reply and inquiry proceeded on 26. 6. 1990 and 27. 6. 1990. On 7. 7. 1990, show cause notice was issued. He filed reply to the show cause notice on 12. 7. 1990. Ultimately, the competent authority passed order on 30. 7. 1990 reducing the respondent by 16 stages, and fixing him at Rs. 775/ -. Industrial dispute was raised. Industrial Tribunal, by order dated 15. 9. 1998, reduced punishment from 16 stages to 5 stages. This order has been passed in exercise of power under section 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the act" ). This order was challenged through Special Civil application No. 1026 of 1999 by Corporation. However, by oral order dated 11. 2. 1999, Special Civil Application was dismissed. The oral order reads:"having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the nature of the case, I am not inclined to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. Petition is dismissed. (R. Balia, J.)"above quoted order in Special Civil Application No. 1026 of 1999 is challenged through Letters Patent Appeal No. 513 of 1999 by the Corporation. While hearing the matter, the division Bench (Coram: R. S. Garg and Ravi R. Tripathi, JJ)passed the following order on 10. 8. 2005:"1. Present is a matter where the departmental authorities imposed punishment of lowering down the appellant to 16 stages below the existing pay scale, but the Industrial Tribunal interfering in the matter in exercise of its powers under section 11a of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") had reduced the punishment from 16 stages to 5 stages only. The learned Single Judge refused to interfere in the matter observing that looking to the nature of the case no interference was called for. 2. Mr. Hardik C. Rawal, learned counsel for the appellant placing his reliance upon a Division Bench judgement dated 29. 03. 2005 of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal no. 1199 of 2002 submits that powers vested in the labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal under sec. 11a of the act can be exercised only in cases which relate to discharge or dismissal of a workman and not otherwise. On the other hand Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the workman placing his reliance upon yet another Division bench judgement of this Court in the matter of Municipal Commissioner, Baroda Vs. Sanatkumar D. Brahmbhatt, reported in 1992 (1) G. L. R. 432 submits that when a reference is made to the Labour court/ Industrial Court, then the whole issue is writ large before the said Court/ Tribunal and de hors section 11a of the Act, legality and propriety of the punishment will have to be examined by the Industrial Tribunal while adjudicating this dispute which was referred for adjudication. 3. After going through both the judgements we are of the consid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document