The High Court of Gujarat dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by an ST CorporationsDivisional Controller challenging the affirmation of an industrial dispute tribunal award which allowed a workman to claim differences in salary after a departmental inquiry. The appellant challenged the single judgment.
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/LPA/768/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 768 of 2017
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11734 of 2015
========================================================== DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Versus NARSINH SARDARSINH BARIA & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK C RAWAL(719) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR PARESH J BRAHMBHATT(9788) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 18/02/2020
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI)
Page 1 of 7
C/LPA/768/2017 ORDER
Page 2 of 7
C/LPA/768/2017 ORDER
3.1 The said writ petition had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 3.10.2016. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition and confirmed the award passed by the President Officer of the Labour Court. It is this order of dismissal of petition which is made the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal.
Page 3 of 7
C/LPA/768/2017 ORDER
Having not done so, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
4.1 Shri Raval has, however, candidly submitted that present appeal is filed against two concurrent decisions; one by the Labour Court and another by the learned Single Judge. After submitting the aforesaid circumstances, he has left it to the discretion of this Court. No other submissions have been made.
Page 4 of 7
C/LPA/768/2017 ORDER
the exercise undertaken by even the President Officer of the Labour Court is also at length. Such fact finding authority, since has examined the case, we are not inclined to disturb the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge based upon the principles propounded by the Apex Court. Since the exercise of the learned Single Judge is found to be justified, in our considered opinion, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant observations made by the learned Single Judge contained in an order impugned, precisely Para.6, 7, 9 and 11;
“[6] The Court finds that when there is no witness examined in the departmental inquiry, the Tribunal committed no error in reaching to the conclusion that when there is no evidence led in the departmental inquiry, the charge was not proved in the departmental inquiry. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer is not supported by any evidence.
[7] The Court finds that for applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur to hold the workman guilty in the departmental inquiry, it was required of the petitioner to produce the material concerning the accident through any witness in the inquiry. When no witness was examined, there was no question of applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur in the present case.
[9] In Cholan Roadways Ltd. (supra), the workman was found guilty based on material produced in the departmental inquiry and he was dismissed from service. The employer sought approval to the action of dismissal. The Tribunal refused to accord approval on the ground that the inquiry officer failed to observe principles of natural justice by not examining the passengers, who had
Page 5 of 7
C/LPA/768/2017 ORDER
given the statements.
[11] As regards the contention that the dispute was raised after 9 years and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the punishment and also not justified in ordering the payment of differences of amount to the respondent no.1, it is required to note that when there was no foundation for punishing the respondent no.1, such delay in raising the dispute should not come in the way of the respondent no.1.”
Limited v. Workmen of Narendra & Company , reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340. We see no other distinguishing circumstance pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant and are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
Page 6 of 7
C/LPA/768/2017 ORDER
by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this Letters Patent
Appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed hereby.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
V.J. SATWARA
Page 7 of 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal should be allowed given the appellant's contention that the Labour Court erred in interfering with a penalty imposed on a workman convicted in an accident involving d
Whether the delay of nine years in raising the industrial dispute invalidated the Labour Court's award allowing interference with the penalty.
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge and the Labour Court in a matter involving primarily findings of fact.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited v. Workmen of Narendra & CompanyExplained¶39
Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited v. Workmen of Narendra & Company (2016) 3 SCC 340 · Who else cites this
Divisional Controller
Narsinh Sardarsinh Baria
Vikram Nath
Ashutosh J. Shastri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
