H.K.RATHOD - (1.) Heard learned advocate Ms. Thakkar for Mr. Lakhani for the Corporation. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt for the respondent has remained present on behalf of the respondent workman. Therefore, the matter has been taken up for hearing in present of both the learned advocates.
(2.) The original petitioner corporation has challenged the award made by the tribunal concerned in approval application no. 17 of 1994 in Reference (IT) No. 65 of 1991 dated 9/12/1998 whereby the approval application moved by the corporation has been rejected by the tribunal. This petition was admitted by this Court and ad.interim relief in terms of para 9(C) of the petition was granted on 14/10/1999 which has continued. The respondent has filed affidavit in reply dated 14/12/1999 and 24th January, 2002.
(3.) Learned advocate Ms.Thakkar appearing for the corporation has submitted that the respondent was working as Art-A Mechanic and his duty was to clean the diesel tank for RTO Passing.She has submitted that the respondent workman was not carrying out the said work properly. Not only that but he made wrong entry in the job chart and, therefore, charge sheet was served upon the respondent workman and after completion of the departmental inquiry, the respondent was ordered to be dismissed from service on 21/03/1994. At the time of dismissal, one month's salary was paid to the respondent workman but the reference no. 65 of 1991 was pending before the tribunal and, therefore, the corporation has filed an application for approval under section 33-(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to her, the respondent has not performed duties properly from 29.1.1993 to 2.2.1993. She has submitted that to make incorrect entry in the job chart is also a separate and independent misconduct; that the misconduct alleged against the workman was proved in the departmental inquiry and in such situation, the tribunal has erred in interfering with the findings recorded by the competent authority; that the two statements of the officer in charge and the mechanic were obtained during the course of departmental inquiry but the same were not considered by the tribunal and in doing so, the tribunal has erred; the tribunal has also erred in not considering that there was prima facie case against the workman concerned; the tribunal has also erred in rejecting the application for approval filed by the corporation and, therefore, this court should interfere with the order made by the tribunal.;