GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AHMEDABAD Vs. ISMAILKHAN ANVARKHAN PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of 75 petition raises common question as of law. All these petitions have been filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation be in which they challenge the rejection of the applications made be them to the Conciliation Officer for granting approval to the orders of dismissal which the Corporation had passed against their employees.

(2.) The facts in Special Civil Application No. 1669 of 1979 are similar to the facts of the case in other petitions. We therefore state in this judgment facts of the case in Special Civil Application No. 1669 of 1979 On 24/05/1977 respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-workman) was driving a bus of the Corporation. It met with an accident as a result of which a pedestrian was killed. There spondent workman gave false information to the Corporation in order to save himself. Later on however correct facts became known to the Corpora- tion. The Corporation therefore issued a charge-sheet to the respondent workman who gave a written reply to it. On 19/09/1977 the respondent workman tendered oral explanation to the Corporation. Ther- eafter a departmental enquiry was held against the respondent-workman and the enquiry officer made his report. He found him guilty of the charges which were levelled against him.

(3.) On 12/05/1978 a second notice was issued to the respondent- workman to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The respondent-workman replied to the said notice. On 28/07/1978 the respondent-workman was dismissed from service. At that time Con- ciliation proceedings between the Corporations workmen including the respondent-workman in respect of some other disputes had been pending before the Conciliation Officer. Therefore the Corporation made an app- lication to the Conciliation Officer under sec. 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for obtaining approval to the action of dismissal which the Corporation had taken aga- inst the respondent-workman. The Conciliation Officer rejected the appli- cation made to him be the Corporation on the ground that the provisions of Rule 63(3) of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were not complied with. Similar orders made in all the 75 cases are challenged to as many petitions before us. There is no dispute about what was not complied with by the Corporation; (1) the Corporation had not stated in each of the applications the place where the application for approval was verified; (2) the Corporation had not stated in the body of each of the applications material facts of the case and the order of which it sought approval from the Conciliation Officer and (3) the Corporation had not stated in the relevant paragraph the date on which wages were paid to the concerned workman.