The High Court dismissed an industrial tribunal award reinstating a workman dismissed under Regulation 113. Since the Single Judge had previously declared Regulation 113 invalid, the High Court sustained the award holding the dismissal illegal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/SCA/15380/2003 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15380 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
| === 1 |
========================================================== Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? |
=== No |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | To be referred to the Reporter or not ? | No |
| 3 | Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? |
No |
| 4 | Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? |
No |
| 5 | Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? | No |
================================================================ GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD....Petitioner(s) Versus UNUS MOHMED BACHUMIYA KADRI & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS LILU K BHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR TR MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR UT MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Date : 03/02/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT
Gujarat Electricity Board sought to challenge
judgment and award dated 27.02.2003 passed by
Industrial Tribunal in Reference(I.T.)No.75/1998. The
Tribunal held thereunder that the action of the
petitioner-employer in terminating the services of the
respondent-workman under Regulation 113 was bad. It
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/15380/2003 JUDGMENT
directed to reinstate the workman on his original post
by counting his services as continuous from
01.07.1996. The workman was however held not entitled
to receive the difference of salary for the period
from 01.07.1996 to December, 2001. It was directed
that from January, 2002, he would be entitled to
salary and all other incidental benefits.
2.The workman had invoked the jurisdiction of the
Industrial Tribunal in respect of his termination
effected on 01.07.1996. It was his case that he was
serving as clerk with effect from 25.03.1987 with
Mehsana Division of the petitioner-Board. It was his
case that due to mental illness, he had to remain on
leave, however, he used to send the leave reports. The
petitioner gave a show-cause-notice to the workman for
his unauthorized absence. It was an action taken under
Regulation 113 of the Service Regulations of the
Gujarat Electricity Board. By exercising the powers
under the said Regulations, order of dismissal was
ultimately passed.
3.Regulation 113 of the Service Regulations of
erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board framed in exercise
ofpowersundersection79(c)ofthe
Electricity(Supply) Act, 1948, reads as under:-
“Regulation-113 : Continued absence from duty or
overstay, in spite of warning, to return to duty, shall
render the employee liable to summarily discharged from
service without the necessity of proceedings under the
Gujarat Electricity Board Conduct, Discipline and appeal
procedure.”
4.It was fairly submitted by learned advocate
Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/15380/2003 JUDGMENT
Ms. Lilu Bhaya for the petitioner and learned advocate
T. R. Mishra for the respondent that Regulation 113,
under which the workman was subjected to a
disciplinary action, came to be held invalid in group
of petitions decided by the learned Single Judge and
further that the decision of the learned Single Judge,
holding Regulation 113 as invalid and illegal, has
been confirmed by the Division Bench in its oral order
dated 19.11.2013 passed in Gujarat Electricity
Transmission Co. Ltd. vs. Kanaiyalal Shamjibhai
Mohani, being Letters Patent Appeal No.1974 of 2004
and connected appeals.
5.The judgment and award impugned in this petition
held the action on the part of the first party
employer to be bad. It is not in dispute that in the
penal action, action against the workman was taken
under the said Regulation 113. The Industrial Tribunal
allowed the reference of the workman, holding the
action of dismissal to be bad in law for the reasons
recorded in the award. In view of the fact that the
said Regulation is held to be invalid and illegal, and
the dispute adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal was
under the very Regulation, the impugned judgment and
award, holding it to be illegal, has got to be
sustained.
6.In the aforesaid view, impugned award has to be
sustained. Petition is required to be dismissed and
accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
7.Learned advocate for the petitioner pointed out
Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/15380/2003 JUDGMENT
from the additional affidavit dated 2nd September, 2013
that subsequently also, show-cause-notices/charge-
sheets were issued to the workman for unauthorized
absence and punishment was imposed on different
occasions. The said show-cause-notices/charge-sheets
and the punishment being outside the purview of the
present petition, it is observed that rights of the
parties are kept open with regard to those actions.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.)
Chandrashekhar
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an industrial tribunal award reinstating an employee based on an invalid regulation can be sustained in a special civil application.
Whether a subsequent Single Judge declaration of the invalidity of Regulation 113 requires the Special Civil Application challenging the award to be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gujarat Electricity Board
Unus Mohamed Bachumiya Kadri
N.V. Anjaria
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court