ORAL ORDER

1. On 21.02.2022, this Court had given a last chance to the respondent to file the appearance. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent workman has passed away and the legal heirs of the deceased respondent are brought on record and their presence was also recorded by this Court in the order dated 16.12.2021.

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it appears that the legal heirs of the deceased respondent, are not interested, as no appearance has been entered by them. Thus, this Court has no other alternative but to hear the learned advocate for the petitioner and decide the matter.

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 12.02.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCR) No.94 of 2001, wherein and whereby, the Labour Court has allowed the reference filed by the deceased workman reinstating him on his original post with continuity of service but without back wages.

4. The facts, in short, are that the respondent was working as Conductor in Bharuch Division, Jambusar Depot since 1989. On 24.02.1994, when the bus en route from Jambusar to Thanava, at that time, he was found under influence of alcohol. When the bus was stopped at Thanava, the deceased respondent fought with the driver and forced him to take the bus to Jambusar. Thereafter, the deceased respondent jumped from the bus, after taking the cash and ticket tray and ran away. Thereafter, on 15.04.1995, the petitioner Corporation dismissed the respondent from service, after holding department proceedings. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the dismissal, the deceased respondent approached the Labour Court, Planpur and the Labour Court, vide judgment and award dated 12.02.2009 passed in Reference (LCR) No.94 of 2001, reinstated the deceased respondent on his original post with continuity of service but without back wages.

5. Learned advocate Ms.Pandey, appearing for the petitioner Corporation has submitted that the deceased respondent was serving as a Conductor and when he was found under influence of liquor / alcohol at night and the bus was stopped at Thanava, the deceased respondent fought with the driver and forced him to take the bus to Jambusar. Thereafter, the deceased respondent jumped from the bus, after taking the cash and ticket tray and ran away. She has submitted that after holding a departmental inquiry, the charge sheet was issued and the charges were proved against the deceased respondent and he was dismissed from service on 15.04.1995. The Labour Court, thereafter has ordered reinstatement of the deceased respondent on his original post with continuity of service but without back wages. She has submitted that the Labour Court has totally ignored the documentary evidence produced before it and has not appreciated the same in true perspective and hence, the impugned award is required to be set aside. She has submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were held in accordance with law, after giving full opportunity of hearing and thus, the judicial review of the Tribunal in such matters with regard to the interference of punishment is very limited. Thus, she has submitted that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. I have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner.

7. The facts which are noted hereinabove would suggest that the deceased respondent was dismissed from service, after holding regular departmental inquiry in view of the grievous and serious misconduct of consuming alcohol, threatening the driver and ranning away with the ticket tray and cash. It is not the case of the deceased respondent that the departmental proceedings have been held in violation of any of the statutory rules or in violation of principle of natural justice. In the departmental proceedings, the deceased respondent had participated and was also given full opportunity to defend his case. The Court has also perused