IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26819 of 2022 ========================================== GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Versus RAMANKUMAR PURUSHOTTAMBHAI CHUDASMA ========================================== Appearance: MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 AAKASH D MODI(7449) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 16/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Present petition is /led under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the impugned award dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (I.T.) No. 94 of 2005 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the reference and directed the petitioner to pay wages to the respondent for a period commencing from 01.01.2000 along with consequential bene/ts. 2. Facts of the present case are that the respondent – workman was working as conductor and remained unauthorisedly absent from duty despite being in permanent employment and required to follow prescribed schedule. It is contended that the respondent was not paid his salary for a period during which he remained unauthorisedly p. 2 absent in accordance with rules. 2.1 It is also contended that the workman approached the Industrial Tribunal by /ling aforesaid reference seeking to pay his salary for a period commencing from 01.01.1991, for a period during which his name was not placed on duty list. 2.2 It is further contended that the Tribunal has partly allowed the reference and directed the petitioner to pay wages to the respondent for a period commencing from 01.01.2000 along with consequential bene/ts. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatis/ed with the impugned award, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. Heard Mr.H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Aakash Modi, learned counsel for the respondent at length. Perused the material on record. 5. Mr.Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and also submitted that there was a delay of more than 15 years in /ling the reference seeking bene/t of payment of salary for a period of absenteeism from 01.01.1991. He has submitted that the respondent was habitual absentee and, therefore, the period during which he remained absent unauthorisedly without intimation and leave, cannot be considered for payment of salary. He has submitted that no cogent reasons were assigned by the Tribunal while directing the petitioner to pay salary for a period commencing from 01.01.2001 though the respondent was unauthorisedly absent. He has submitted that the p. 3 respondent has not worked during the period which he has claimed for his dues of salary and other consequential bene/ts for a period commencing from 2001 to 2009 without producing any cogent and relevant documentary evidence before the Tribunal, despite this fact, the Tribunal has passed the impugned award which is not just and proper. He has submitted that the Tribunal has miserably failed to consider the fact that there was a delay in /ling the reference on the part of the respondent and there was no explanation rendered by the respondent for causing delay. He has submitted that though the Corporation has not having any documentary evidence since it was pretty long time i.e. 1990 and the respondent was claiming dues after about 15 to 17 years and, therefore, the Corporation had not produced any documents before the Tribunal. He has submitted that the respondent had worked during the period and there was serious misconduct on the part of the workman about remaining absent and without considering all these facts, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and passed the impugned award, which is illegal, unjust and not tenable in the eyes of law. He has submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr.Modi, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent had produced documentary evidence available with him before the Tribunal and even in his oral evidence, he had categorically stated that whatever documents along with the copy of the abstract of the service book and others were already produced before the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal has, after considering the evidence, passed the award and has not committed any error of facts and law. He has submitted that the respondent was reached at the age of superannuation and he was retired from the service in the p. 4 year 2009, however, in these years, he had litigated and incurred monetary loss, but the petitioner has not paid anything till date. He has submitted that the respondent had worked during the period and no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal to that eBect and thereby suppressed the material facts, but the workman was actually entitled to such dues and no relevant evidence available with the petitioner and, hence, on the basis of the presumption, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award. Mr.Modi, learned counsel has lastly submitted that the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed and the impugned award deserves to be con/rmed. 7. Having considered the material placed on record and considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for both the sides and perused the original record and proceedings of the case and also perused the documents more particularly at Exhibit 34, 36 and 37, it is required to be noted herein that there was serious misconduct on the part of the respondent with regard to unauthorized leaves as shown in remark the column made by the Corporation. Looking to such document, it appears that on every occasion, the Corporation has inDicted punishment upon the workman by way of deduction of the salary for two months or three months or imposed certain penalty deducing Rs.200/-, Rs.300/- and Rs.400/- instead of taking disciplinary proceedings. There is serious lethargy on the part of the Corporation as the Corporation has recorded all these default in the service book, however, the Corporation has not taken any disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. So, it appears that there is fault on both the sides as the Corporation has never initiated any disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and on the other hand, the workman has also not instituted any proceedings for p. 5 deduction of salary as many as 15 to 17 years. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Court deems just and proper to award lump sum compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- to the workman instead of going into merits of the matter and the workman had already reached at the age of superannuation and he was retired in 2009 and, therefore, it desirous to put the proceedings into end. 9. In view of the above, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside and modi/ed to the extent that instead of ordering to make the payment from 01.01.2000 onward along with consequential reliefs, the petitioner shall pay lump sum compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- as full and /nal settlement to the respondent after proper veri/cation of the identity and bank details through RTGS within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL