IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 41 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/12681/2022 ==========================================================

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Versus S.T. KARMACHARI UNION THROUGH GAJUBHA KHUMANSINH VACHHANI (WORKMAN)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR PARESH J BRAHMBHATT(9788) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Sejal K. Mandavia for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Paresh J. Brahmbhatt for the respondent.

2. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, the appellant – original respondent has challenged the Order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.12681 of 2022 whereby, the learned Single Judge while allowing the said writ petition has quashed and set aside the Award dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Reference (IT) No.296 of 2010.

3. The facts of the case are that the respondent – original petitioner was serving as a Conductor with the appellant – Corporation since 1991. While discharging duties on the route from Vadodara to Piludra under Padra Depot on 15.05.2002, the checking squad boarded the bus at Dabhasa and found that the respondent had failed to issue tickets to a group of three passengers despite having collected fare from them. The appellant thereafter, issued a charge-sheet and after conducting the departmental inquiry, passed an Order dated 31.07.2002 withholding four increments with future effect. The departmental appeal filed by the respondent was also rejected on 31.03.2004.

4. Being aggrieved, the respondent – original petitioner raised industrial dispute being Reference (IT) No.296 of 2010 before the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara. The Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, by Judgment and Award dated 12.03.2020, allowed the Reference by setting aside the Order of stoppage of four increments with future effect, but declined to grant the monetary benefits pursuant to such setting aside of the Order for the interregnum period from the date of punishment till the date of preferring the Reference with an order to treat the same for notional benefits.

5. The respondent – original petitioner, therefore, challenged the denial of arrears of pay on account of setting aside of the punishment Order before this Court by preferring captioned the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned Judgment and Order, allowed the writ petition by observing as under:-

“6.1 The only ground assigned by the learned Tribunal for denying the monetary benefits for the interregnum period is the alleged delay of seven years in raising the dispute. The learned Tribunal has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Others, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 222. On referring the said decision it emerges that, the case before the Apex Court was of the employee, who has terminated and raised dispute after the delay of 18 years. That the Apex Court has held that the relief could be molded while entertaining the dispute however, in the present case the petitioner has worked continuously and there was no question of any idle wages. In that background, the said decision would irrelevant in the present case.

6.2 In the considered view of this Court, once the punishment imposed upon the petitioner has been held to be illegal, the learned Tribunal ought to have directed payment of monetary benefits for the interregnum period instead of granting only notional benefits. The mere delay in raising the dispute, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny such benefits when the very foundation of th