Dismissed

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. N.M.Chisty

Gujarat HC1 Aug 2005SCA/15493/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SCA No. 15493 of 2005, the Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal by GSRTC challenging an award by the Industrial Tribunal Rajkot. The Court held that a new plea regarding the employee's status could not be raised in writ proceedings and found no infirmity in the Tribunal's exercise of power to mitigate punishment.

What did the court decide?

The Special Civil Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Gujarat HC (2005)

¶1

SCA/15493/20051/5

¶2

JUDGMENT

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶4

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15493 of 2005

¶5

For Approval and Signature:

¶6

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

¶7

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

¶8

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed} to see the judgment ?

¶9

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶10

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ? Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶11

5^{Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge} ?

¶12

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

¶13

GUJARATSTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION - Petitioner(s)

¶14

Versus

¶15

N.M.CHISTY - Respondent(s)

¶16

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

¶17

Appearance :

¶18

MR HARDIK C RAWALfor Petitioner No(s).: 1.

¶19

None for Respondent No(s).: 1.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

¶22

Date : 01/08/2005

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of

¶25

the Constitution of India, the petitioner – GSRTC has
challenged the legality and validity of the judgment

¶26

SCA/15493/20052/5JUDGMENT

¶27

and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot
dated 18th January, 2005 passed in Reference (IT)
No.44 of 2002.

¶28

2.The respondent was serving as Depot Manager-”B”
with the petitioner corporation. Departmental inquiry

¶29

was initiated against him alleging interalia that the
report dated 11-1-2001 sent by the respondent was
incorrect and 254 km was shown as excess in log sheet
and by virtue of aforesaid fault, the corporation has

¶30

suffered loss of Rs.2138/- which also came to be
recovered from the respondent. After holding the
departmental inquiry and after holding the charge
proved against him, disciplinary authority imposed
punishment of reverting the respondent to the post of

¶31

Head Mechanic by order dated 29.6.2001. The
respondent workman raised industrial dispute

¶32

challenging the order of reversion to the post of
Head Mechanic which was referred to the Industrial
Tribunal, Rajkot for its adjudication being Reference

¶33

(IT) No.44 of 2002 and after appreciation of

¶34

evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal held that
the punishment of reversion to the post of Head

¶35

SCA/15493/20053/5JUDGMENT

¶36

Mechanic is disproportionate to the charge and the
misconduct proved against him and exercising the
powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 interfered with the order of punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority and imposed
punishment of withholding of three increments without
future effect and denying 50 % of the difference in
the wages which might be due to substituting the
order of punishment.

¶37

3.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
Rajkot dated 18.1.2005 passed in Reference (IT)
No.44 of 2002 in partly allowing the said reference,
the petitioner corporation has preferred the present
special civil application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.

¶38

4.Shri H.C.Rawal, learned advocate appearing on

¶39

behalf of the petitioner has made the only submission
that the respondent was the “Manager” and therefore,
the Industrial Tribunal ought not to have considered

¶40

the respondent as the “workman” as he could not have

¶41

SCA/15493/20054/5JUDGMENT

¶42

been covered by the definition of “workman”. It is
required to be noted that such contention was not
raised before the Industrial Tribunal. Whether the
respondent was working on the post of “Manager” and
was performing the supervisory duty and whether he
was “workman” or not, is fact which is required to be
considered on appreciation of evidence before the
Industrial Tribunal. When such contention is not
raised before the Industrial Tribunal which requires
appreciation of evidence, the same cannot be raised
for the first time before this Court in a petition
under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India. Under the circumstances, the contention on
behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶43

5.So far as the submissions on behalf of the
petitioner that the Industrial Tribunal has

¶44

materially erred in exercising the powers under
Section-11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are
concerned, on appreciation of evidence the Tribunal
has come to the conclusion that the punishment which
was imposed by the disciplinary authority was
shockingly disproportionate and not just, the same is

¶45

SCA/15493/20055/5JUDGMENT

¶46

not required to be interfered with by this Court in a
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India as normally it is the
Industrial Tribunal and / or the Labour Court to
decide the adequacy of the punishment unless it is
found that exercise of powers is not judicious or
and/or excessive. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, it cannot be said that exercise of powers
by the Industrial Tribunal under Section-11-A of the
I.D.Act is not judicious and / or is excessive.

¶47

6. Under the circumstances, there is no substance in the present petition and the same is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶48

=kailash=

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. N.M.Chisty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. N.M.Chisty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Gujarat Vs Jayantibhai Nathabhai C/O. Bharatiya Majdoor Sangh

Dy.Engineer Vs Anilkumar Narsinhbhai Barot

Tata Chemicals Limited Vs Deviben Bhikhabhai

Ramnik Jugatram Jani Vs Amarsinhji Mills Ltd.

Chhani Village Panchayat through Sarpanch Vs Ramsinh Jokhabhai Meda

Raojibhai Melabhai Mali Vs Chhaani Gram Panchayat