JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

K.M. Thaker, J.

Heard Mr. Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. V.D. Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent.

2. The petitioner State Road Transport Corporation has challenged award dated 20.8.2015 passed by learned Labour Court at Jamnagar in Reference (T) No. 426/1992 whereby the learned Labour Court directed present petitioner to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service but without back-wages.

3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that at the relevant time the claimant was in service with present petitioner.

3.1 When present petitioner terminated service of present respondent on ground of misconduct, he raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent Corporation arbitrarily and illegally terminated his service and therefore he should be reinstated.

3.2 Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court at Jamnagar. The learned Labour Court registered the dispute as Reference (T) No. 426 of 1992.

3.3 In his statement of claim, the claimant alleged that he joined the service with opponent corporation in 1977 and he worked as conductor until July, 1990 and thereafter as Traffic Controller from August, 1990 to October, 1991 when the Corporation arbitrarily and illegally terminated his service. He alleged that domestic inquiry was conducted on concocted charge and allegation and that the inquiry was conducted and completed in violation of principles of natural justice and the opponent corporation terminated his service vide order dated 26.10.1991 without granting sufficient opportunity of hearing. He also alleged that though the charge and allegations about misconduct was not proved, the Inquiry Officer submitted report holding that the allegations are proved and the disciplinary authority accepted such incorrect and erroneous report and terminated his service. With such allegations the claimant demanded that corporation should reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

3.4 The opponent corporation opposed the reference and the statement of claim as well as demand. The corporation denied that the claimant ever worked as traffic controller. It was contended that the claimant was serving as Conductor. The corporation also claimed that charge and allegation of misconduct of serious nature namely not issuing tickets after collecting fare was reported against the claimant and therefore after issuing charge sheet domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the rules and regulations applicable to the corporation and on conclusion of the inquiry the Inquiry Officer held that the charge and allegations are proved. Therefore, the competent authority, after taking into account total length of claimant's service (about 3 years) and after taking into account record of post service (10 instances of misconduct during 3 years of service) decided to terminate service of the claimant and therefore order dated 26.10.1991 came to be passed whereby the respondent came to be dismissed from service. According to Corporation the termination of claimant's service was in pursuance of proved misconduct and that the said decision was neither incorrect nor harsh nor arbitrary. With such submission the Corporation submitted that any relief cannot be granted and reference should be rejected.

3.5 The learned Labour Court, after conclusion of stage of pleading, received evidence from both sides. When the parties closed their evidence learned Labour Court heard rival submissions and passed award dated 10.9.1998.

3.6 In the said proceedings of Reference No. 426 of 1992 the claimant initially did not challenge the legality and propriety of the domestic inquiry. The workman, at this stage, also declared that he is engaged in profession as an Advocate and that, therefore, he is not interested in being reinstated in service.

3.7 After recording such submission by the clai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document