GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLERversusRAMANKUMAR PURUSHOTTAMBHAI CHUDASMA

      C/SCA/26819/2022                                  ORDER DATED: 16/02/2026




          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


                                      Page 1 of 5
      C/SCA/26819/2022                            ORDER DATED: 16/02/2026




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

                                 Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/26819/2022                            ORDER DATED: 16/02/2026




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

                               Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/26819/2022                               ORDER DATED: 16/02/2026




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

                                  Page 4 of 5
          C/SCA/26819/2022                                                                ORDER DATED: 16/02/2026




  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


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 18/02/2026 14:44:36




                                                           Page 5 of 5