R. D. KOTHARI, J.

1. Question of proportionality of punishment in service cases, in departmental proceeding is raised for consideration in the present case.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of present petition are thus; Employees of Shree Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Kodinar had filed Recovery Applications before the Labour Court, Amreli under Section 33(c)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for recovery of their pay of 18 months along with the cost of the proceeding. These applications were transferred to Rajkot, to the Court of petitioner. The petitioner is a delinquent in inquiry proceeding. Earlier in BIR Case No.89 of 1997, Labour Court, Rajkot had passed an award and these Recovery Applications were filed on the basis of that award; these Recovery Applications were Application Nos.199 to 981 of 1996 - the applications were of 783 workers; It appears that on 1.1.1998, hearing on the Recovery Applications were concluded; It further appears that on next day i.e. on 2.1.1998, a request was made on behalf of the employer that employer intends to approach the High Court for appropriate relief; Then, Misc. Civil Application No.19 of 1998 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1447 of 1997 was filed and on 8.1. 1998, the High Court had stayed the further proceeding till 16.1.1998; This order was brought to the notice of the petitioner on 12.1.1998; Thereafter, stay was extended by the High Court for some time, however, on 12.2.1998, it appears that learned Advocate for the workers have submitted before the petitioner that High Court has not extended the stay and request was made to the petitioner to pass an order on Recovery Applications; Then, on 2.3.1998 the petitioner is said to have asked the learned Advocate for the parties either to produce a copy of the order of the high Court or to file an affidavit in that regard; It is not clear that any specific date to file an affidavit or to produce the order of the High Court was given by the petitioner or not; In the departmental inquiry, it is one of the main contentions of the petitioner that there is no practice in Labour Court either to give a specific date of pronouncement of order in Recovery Applications or to maintain Rojkam for that. however the Rojkam on the record shows that after 2.3.1998, the matters were taken up on 9.3.1998; One line Rojkam of 9.3.1998 appears to convey that pursis was given on behalf of applicant to pass an order; Then on 11.3.1998, an order came to be passed in Letters Patent Appeal wherein this Court has directed that all the Recovery Applications should be placed before another Labour Court - other than the Court of delinquent - and High Court had also fixed the time limit for disposal of the applications by directing to dispose of the applications by 30.4.1998; This order of transferring the applications from the Court of petitioner came to be communicated to the petitioner on 16.3.1998 ( 13th. 14th and 15th being holiday of Holi and Saturday and Sunday); On 16.3.1998, an application was given by the Advocate of the employer along with the letter said to have been written by the Advocate of the High Court appearing in Letters Patent Appeal therein transferring of case from the Court of petitioner by the High Court was specifically brought to the notice of delinquent and request was made to not to pass any order; It is the say of the petitioner that this application and letter was presented to him at about 1.30 p.m.; It is further say of the petitioner that he had already passed an order on Recovery Applications at about 11.45 a.m.

3. In the application submitted to the petitioner on 16.3.1998, following order was passed by him: (Translated version of Gujarati)

"Read the application today and heard Mr. Tanna in this regard. The said application has been presented at 1.30 hrs in noon. Prior to that, the Court has pronounced the judgment today at about 11.45 hrs. in the noon. In the circumstances, further proceedings will