DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. DHANJIBHAI T KHARADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has taken out this petition against the order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in complaint / application No.664 of 2004 in reference (IT) No.37 of 2000 whereby, the learned tribunal rejected the approval application filed by the petitioner seeking approval of its action of terminating present respondent. As a result of the impugned order, the petitioner's action of terminating the respondent was not approved and consequently, the termination order was rendered ineffective and inoperative.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner as well as the respondent were willing to arrive at some amicable and mutually agreeable settlement. As a step towards said goal, the respondent herein offered to accept voluntary retirement by way of final settlement. Subsequently, after some delebrations, the petitioner corporation agreed, in principal, to accept the offer / suggestion by the respondent and then it also agreed to offer voluntary retirement to the respondent from the date on which the respondent was originally terminated. This development was in pursuance of and in light of the directions issued by the court vide order dated 27.11.2007. As a net result of the aforesaid developments, the petitioner corporation agreed to convert the respondent's termination into voluntary retirement with effect from the date of his termination i.e. 6th October, 2004. It has now come on record and the decision of the petitioner corporation is placed on record, by communication dated 4.10.2007, and copy thereof is made available to the respondent as well. The respondent herein has accepted the said decision of the petitioner corporation. However, he was anxious to know the extent of quantum of the benefits, which would become available to him upon finalization of the settlement. Thus, the same was inquired from the corporation and the respondent herein also addressed a letter dated 12.5.2008 to the petitioner corporation requesting for clarifications as regards the issues raised by him in the said communication.

(3.) MS . Mehta for the petitioner corporation states that as such, no other amount beyond the said amount would be payable, however, she would instruct the concerned officer of the corporation to look into the said aspect and if any other amount is or may be payable, then, the needful will be done in that regard and the shortfall will be made good. It is, however, understood, agreed and settled that no dispute on this count will be raised by the respondent.