Gujarat High Court
SCA/99/1989 of G S R T C Vs S T WORKERS UNION on 30 November 2000
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 99 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 99 of 1989
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- G S R T CVersus S T WORKERS UNION
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Petitioner L.R. Pujari, AGP, for Respondent No. 1 MR MH SHAIKH for Respondent No. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
Date of decision: 30/11/2000
ORAL JUDGEMENT
The petitioner-corporation challenges the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 19.7.1998 by which while confirming the guilt of the delinquent workman the Tribunal set aside the order placing him in the original pay scale and substituted that punishment by order that his one increment is to be withheld with permanent effect.
2 The only charge for which the workman was held guilty was that he had allowed more passengers to travel in a bus than its permissible capacity. It was clearly found that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the conductor in carrying excess passengers in a bus which was engaged for a marriage party. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal found that the punishment imposed by the competent authority was grossly disproportionate. It was noticed that the record of the employee was clean and that the mistake on his part was a genuine one and therefore the punishment was reduced to stoppage of one increment. The Tribunal has acted in lawful exercise of its jurisdiction in making the impugned award warranting no interference by this Court. The petition is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated.
��� ***
(mohd)