IMPORTANT POINT
The sufficiency of a penalty in an industrial dispute case should be determined based on the gravity of the charges and the importance of an honest approach from employees.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has filed this petition with the following prayers:

“7(A) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the form of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of Reference (I.T.) No.214 of 2012 and after perusing the same be pleased to quash and set aside the award and order dated 20.06.2015, published on 09.09.2015, passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (I.T.) No.214 of 2012;

(B) During the admission, pendency and final disposal of this petition be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the award and order dated 20.06.2015, published on 09.09.2015, passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (I.T.) No.214 of 2012;

(C) Be pleased to award the cost of this petition.

(D) Any other and/or further relief/s that may deem fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted to the petitioner.”

2. Facts, referred in the petition, are as under :

The respondent-workman was working with the petitioner-corporation as Conductor. For the misconduct, he was subjected to departmental inquiry and after completion of the inquiry proceedings, he was inflicted with penalty of lowest of time scale by an order dated 22.11.1985. Aggrieved by the penalty, respondent-workman preferred Civil Suit No.1093 of 1992, which came to be allowed. The petitioner-corporation preferred First Appeal challenging an order passed in the Civil Suit, which was dismissed. When the corporation preferred Second Appeal before this Court, this Court allowed the Second Appeal filed by the Corporation and remanded the matter to the District Court. District Court thereafter on 05.06.2007 held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction and permitted the workman to avail appropriate remedy under the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. Pursuant to which, the workman raised dispute registered as Reference (I.T.) No.214 of 2012. Upon adjudication, the Industrial Tribunal, Jamnagar modified the order of penalty from putting the respondent-workman in the lowest of time scale to stoppage of three increments without future effect. It was also directed that the petitioner shall pay the amount within a period of 30 days. Aggrieved by modification of the penalty vide award dated 20.06.2015, the present petition is filed.

3. Heard Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner-corporation and Ms.Hina Desai, learned advocate for the respondent-workman.

4. Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner-corporation submitted that the judgment and award of the Labour Court is erroneous since the same was entertained after a delay of 30 years. Against the order of penalty dated 22.11.1985, reference was partly allowed in the year 2015 and therefore, this petition may be allowed on the ground of delay and latches.

4.1 Further, the workman, chose the wrong Forum and ignorance of law is not a ground and therefore, substitution of penalty by award dated 20.06.2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4.2 On merits, the workman was charge-sheeted for keeping unpunched tickets in his bag. The workman had not challenged the inquiry proceedings in the Reference and when the inquiry was not challenged, the scope of judicial review with regard to quantum of punishment is very minimal and thereby, Industrial Tribunal has erred in modifying the penalty by substituting its own findings.

4.3 There were ample evidences to prove the charges and after having considered the misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority had passed the penalty order, the same being not disproportionate, deserves no interference by the Reference Court.

4.4 The charges were of misappropriation of money and of grave nature and therefore, considering the gravity of charges, reduction of punishment was not appropriate. He submitted that stoppage of three increments without future effect is no penalty