GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SAMANISINH H CHAVDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, by this Special Civil Application, challenges the validity, legality and correctness of the order of respondent No. 2 passed on the application of the petitioner filed under S.33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and registered as Case No. 39 of 1987.

(2.) The respondent No. 1-workman is the employee of the petitioner-Corporation and without permission of the Corporation he contested the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tarkhanda. He was elected as Sarpanch and has worked as Sarpanch under the false name of Gulabsinh Himatsinh Chavda. A regular departmental enquiry was held against respondent No. 1 on the misconduct of contesting election of Sarpanch without permission and the misconduct alleged against him was proved and the Corporation had resolved to dismiss him from the services of the Corporation. As a permission has to be taken under S.33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the same, an application has been filed and simultaneously an order has also been made to pay to the respondent No. 1-workman subsistence allowance at the rate of 25% of the salary pending approval. During the pendency of the said application, the petitioner vide its application dated 20th February 1988 prayed the respondent No. 2 to decide what amount of suspension allowance should be paid to the workman during the pendency of application under S.33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent No. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under S.33 of the Act 1947 only on the ground that the respondent-workman has been paid only 25% salary as subsistence allowance which is contrary to the Supreme Court decision. Hence this Special Civil Application before this Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of respondent No. 2 to decline to approve dismissal of the respondent No. 1- workman only on the ground that 25% of the salary was paid to him as subsistence allowance is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. Mr. S. M. Mazgaonker, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court has held, in the case of Mansinh R. Parmar v. G.S.R.T.C. , reported in [1982(2) XXIII(2) GLR 708, that it is competent for the petitioner-Corporation to suspend its employee without wages pending application for permission of its action of dismissal of the employee and in this case more pragmatic view has been taken and despite of the aforesaid decision, order has been passed to pay the respondent-workman 25% of his salary as subsistence allowance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decision is later in point of time and as such the Tribunal should not have rejected the application of the petitioner only on this ground. It has next been contended that the petitioner itself has moved an application before the authority on 20th February 1988 to take its guideline as to the amount of subsistence allowance to be paid to the workman but no such decision has been taken. Lastly, Mr. Mazgaonker urged that it was a case of serious misconduct and the respondent-workman has not disputed that he contested the election without permission and worked as Sarpanch. On this ground alone, permission should not have been declined. At the most the respondent No. 2 could have passed the order of giving balance of subsistence allowance to the workman.