K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Songara, learned advocate for Mr.G.K. Rathod, learned advocate for the respondent-workman.

2. RULE. Mr. Songara, learned advocate has waived service of rule for the respondent-workman.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and at the request of learned advocate for the petitioner and with consent of learned advocate for the respondent, the petition is heard and decided finally today.

4. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 24.04.2013 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No. 58/08, whereby the learned Tribunal has interfered with the order of penalty passed by the employer imposing penalty of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect in case where the respondent-workman was found to be negligent in performance of his duty as driver inasmuch as while on duty he met with an accident and in the said accident two persons (i.e. scooter driver and pillion ride) died in the said accident. After conducting domestic inquiry, where the Inquiry Officer found that the charge levelled against the respondent-workman is proved, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of stoppage of seven increments with permanent effect. The said penalty was reduced by the Departmental Appellant Authority who reduced the penalty and imposed penalty of stoppage of four increments with permanent effect. The respondent-workman was not satisfied with the said reduction in penalty by Departmental Appellant Authority, and therefore, he raised industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication. The reference was registered as Reference (IT) No. 58/2008. In the proceedings, the respondent-workman challenged legality and propriety of the domestic inquiry. Therefore, the learned Tribunal decided the said issue as preliminary issue/objection and vide order dated 18.07.2012, the Court held that the inquiry was legal and proper and was conducted in fair manner. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal decided the respondents grievance against the order of penalty. After considering the evidence on record and rival submissions by the contesting parties, the learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the penalty of stoppage of four increments with permanent effect imposed by the Departmental Appellant Authority is harsh. The learned Tribunal considered it appropriate to interfere with the said order and penalty and the learned Tribunal reduced the quantum of penalty to stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. The petitioner-Corporation is aggrieved by the said decision. Hence, present petition.

5. Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that when the learned Court held that the domestic inquiry is legal and fair and even the learned Tribunal found that the inquiry was not defective in any manner and inquiry officers report holding that the charge is proved and order of penalty (which was disputed by the respondent-workman) was passed after such legal and fair inquiry and in light of the consideration and findings by the inquiry officer, then in such circumstances, the learned Tribunal ought not have interfere with the decision as regards the quantum of penalty.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the accident occurred on account of the negligence in performance and duty and on account of rush driving, wherein two persons lost their lives. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision in case of Cholan Roadways Ltd. versus Thirugnanasambandam, reported in AIR 2005 SC 570 and the decision in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation versus Vinod kumar, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 115 to support the contention that when the factum of accident and factum of death of two persons is established and when the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation holding, inter lia, that drivers negligence was responsible for the accident, then in that event, factum of respond