- (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court partly allowing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the present appellant.
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent (hereinafter referred to the 'workman') was employed with the appellant-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') as a driver. While driving a corporation vehicle respondent caused an accident as a result of which a child aged about 8 years died. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the workman but he was acquitted. A claim petition claiming compensation was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'M.V. Act') and the Corporation paid compensation of about Rs.45, 000/- to the claimants. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the workman and he was found guilty. His negligence of duty as well as charge of misconduct were held to have been proved. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service. A reference was made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'Act') to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The Presiding Officer came to hold that since the workman was acquitted in the criminal case, a contrary view in the departmental proceedings was not permissible. Accordingly, reinstatement was directed without back wages by order dated 11.5.1990. Immediately thereafter respondent-workman was reinstated and the Award of the Labour Court was not challenged by the Corporation. Subsequently, in November, 1991, the workman filed writ petition before the High Court, questioning correctness of the refusal of back wages. By order dated 21.9.2000 writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge who directed payment of full back wages from the due date till the date from which he was reinstated along with running interest @ 6% p.a. Corporation filed Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench reduced back wages to 75% instead of full back wages as directed by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view taken by the Labour Court about the effect of acquittal is clearly contrary to law. The Corporation had to pay compensation of about Rs.45, 000/- to the claimants. The respondent was earlier also responsible for several acts of misconduct. In fact, there were more than two dozen proceedings. The Labour Court while deciding on the question of entitlement of back wages had taken note of this aspect. Unfortunately, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench took note of it. Further, conclusions that whenever reinstatement is directed, payment of back wages is the natural corollary is contrary to law.;