K.M. THAKER, J.

1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Vyas, learned Advocate for the respondent.

2. The petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ("the Corporation" for short) is aggrieved by award dated 19-12-2014 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal at Rajkot in Reference (I.T.) No. 149 of 2006.

3. The brief facts, involved in this petition, can be summarized thus:

3.1. In 2006, the respondent herein raised industrial dispute with regard to : (a) order of penalty passed by the competent authority in December, 1990 (stoppage of 2 increments with permanent effect); (b) order of penalty passed in October, 1992 (stoppage of 5 increments with permanent effect); (c) order of penalty passed in April, 1995 (stoppage of increment for 6 months with permanent effect); (d) order of penalty passed in 1998 (stoppage of increment for 6 months with permanent effect); and (e) order of penalty passed in September, 1999 (reduction of salary by one stage in the applicable pay-scale).

3.2. The said different orders of penalty passed in respect of different misconduct committed at different point of time, came to be challenged after gross delay and the said dispute came to be referred for adjudication by common order of reference passed by appropriate Government in June, 2006.

3.3. At the relevant time, i.e. when the authority passed the orders and imposed penalty in December, 1990 or October, 1992 or April, 1995 or November, 1998 or September, 1999, the claimant did not raise dispute against orders of penalty passed by competent authority and suddenly in 2006, he raised dispute against said orders.

3.4. The order of reference dated 14-6-2006 came to be registered by learned Tribunal as Reference (I.T.) No. 149 of 2006.

3.5. In the said reference case, the claimant filed statement of claim. In his statement of claim, he raised common/similar and identical allegations in respect of said five orders of penalty (i.e. the authority passed orders without granting opportunity of hearing) and the allegations were concocted and he had not committed alleged misconduct and that penalty imposed by the competent authority is harsh and the departmental appeals also came to be rejected arbitrarily. The workman also alleged that he did not commit misconduct and he had offered explanation as to why he did not issue tickets and/or did not collect fare and/or neither issued tickets and nor collected fare, however, the authority arbitrarily ignored his explanation and passed the orders of penalty which should be set aside.

3.6. The Corporation opposed the reference on several grounds. The Corporation essentially opposed the reference on the ground of gross delay in raising industrial dispute. In its reply, the Corporation also denied the allegations. The Corporation claimed that the misconduct of not issuing tickets, issuing tickets and not collecting fare were reported by the squad pursuant to which, charge-sheet were issued and in respect of each instance (charge sheet), domestic inquiry was conducted and the competent authority passed orders at the relevant time after taking into account the gravity of misconduct and service record of the workman. The Corporation also claimed that though the service of the claimant deserved to be terminated in view of such repeated instance of misconduct, the Corporation had taken lenient view and imposed penalty short of discharge or dismissal and in respect of such penalty which was, in any case, short of discharge and dismissal, the learned Tribunal should not and could not have interfered with.

3.7. The learned Tribunal adjudicated the reference and after taking into account material available on record and rival submissions, passed impugned award whereby the learned Tribunal set aside the order dated 26-4-1995 and also set aside the order dated 30-11-1998. The learned Tribunal confirmed the order dated 30-9-1999.

3.8. So far as the orders dated 1-12-1990 and 9-10-1992 are concerned, the c