IMPORTANT POINT
Powers and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the finding of misconduct and order imposing the punishment other than the punishment of discharge or dismissal is restricted.

K.M.THAKER, J.

Heard learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent.

2. In this petition, the petitioner workman has challenged award dated 30-6-2007 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.42 of 2003 whereby the learned Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the award, dismissed the reference.

Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Tribunal, the workman has taken out this petition.

3. So far as factual aspect is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the petitioner herein i.e. original claimant raised industrial dispute against order of termination of his service passed by the respondent corporation. He alleged that the respondent-Corporation illegally terminated his service. With the said allegation, the petitioner demanded reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

3.1. The appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar which was registered as Reference (I.T.) No.42 of 2003. The terms of the reference read thus:-

“Whether the penalty imposed by order dated 24-8-2001 against the claimant should be set aside and the employer should be directed to pay all consequential benefits with interest.”

3.2. In respect of the said dispute, the claimant alleged in his statement of claim that he was employed by the opponent corporation and he worked as conductor. At the relevant time, he was posted at Dhari depot. He alleged that he was member of union. The corporation had grudge against him and that therefore, he was victimized. He alleged that only with a view to victimize him, the corporation had issued charge sheet and thereafter, imposed penalty vide order dated 24-8-2001. He alleged that the order of penalty is unjust and arbitrary. Therefore, the penalty order deserves to be set aside and all consequential benefits should be granted to him.

3.3. The opponent corporation opposed the reference and denied the allegations by the claimant. The corporation narrated factual details in his written statement stating, inter alia, that on 3-3-1998, the claimant was on duty and he was aboard the bus which was plying enroute from Dhandhuka to Bapunagar and during his shift on the said bus, he had collected fare from 4 members, but he did not enter/reflect the sale of the tickets in the statement (way bill). The said misconduct was reported. Therefore, charge sheet dated 6-5-1998 was issued and pursuant to said charge sheet, domestic inquiry was conducted. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the workman was visited with penalty of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. The corporation also mentioned that even during past service the workman was visited with penalties when misconduct of similar nature were reported. The corporation also clarified that the disciplinary authority had imposed fine of Rs.50/- and that therefore, the matter was taken in review by the reviewing authority / first appellate authority. A notice for review of the case was issued and the petitioner was heard by the reviewing authority / first appellate authority in review case No.106 of 1998 and thereafter, penalty of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect was passed.

3.4. Upon conclusion of the stage of pleadings, the learned Tribunal received evidence from both sides. After the parties closed the evidence, the learned Tribunal heard learned advocates for the claimant and the corporation and thereafter, the learned Tribunal passed the order and dismissed the reference.

4. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that originally the disciplinary authority had imposed penalty of only fine to the tune of Rs.50/- and thereafter, quantum of penalty was enhanced by reviewing authority/appellate authority. He submitted that the petitioner did not commit any misconduct but inadvertent mistake was committed in punching the tickets and it is not the case of not issuing tickets after collecting fare. He submitted that the penalty impos