Dismissed

Bhagirath Sharma v. R S R T C and Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2015SAW/539/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court special appeal was filed against a Single Judge order declined to permit reinstatement of a workman removed for misconduct. While the reference was closed, the workman was reinstated later. The appellate bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's refusal to grant wages for the intervening period.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal stands dismissed. No wages for the intervening period are to be granted to the appellant.

Bhagirath Sharma Vs R S R T C and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

¶3

Jaipur Bench

¶4

¶5

DB Special Appeal (W) No.539/ 2014

¶6

Dat e of Or der ::: 1 5 / 1 / 2 0 1 5

¶7

Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice Aj ay Rast ogi Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice JK Ran k a

¶8

Mr. Babu Lal Gupta, for appellant.

¶9

Instant intra court appeal has been preferred against the order of Ld. Single Judge dt.14.2.2014.

¶10

It can be noticed from the record that the appellant workmen was appointed to serve the respondent Corporation as Conductor. However, for the alleged misconduct of carrying 25 passengers without ticket and collected amount of Rs.316.50 against fare. In the departmental enquiry, however, charge was not found proved by the enquiry officer but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings and after statement of reasons/ disagreement, copy of enquiry report was served and finally he was removed from service vide order dt.21.4.1993.

¶11

It appears that there was some industrial dispute pending and as such an application was filed seeking approval of action of the disciplinary authority u/ S.33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) but that came to be rejected vide order dt.31.7.1997 which was the subject matter of challenge

¶12

¶13

by filing of writ petition and that has been decided vide order dt.14.2.2014.

¶14

The Ld. Single Judge after taking into consideration the material on record finally did not find justification to interfere in the order of the Tribunal declining to grant permission as prayed for by the Corporation u/ S.33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act vide its order dt.31.7.1997 but taking into consideration overall aspect of the matter considered appropriate to observe that the workmen shall not be entitled to any wages for the intervening period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement and further observed that reinstatement is a consequence after the application u/ S.33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act filed at the instance of the Corporation has been declined but as regards consequential benefits including wages for the intervening period is concerned, examining the equitable jurisdiction was not inclined to grant benefit but has not interfered in the order of reinstatement. It is also informed that the workmen has been reinstated in service but the date of reinstatement is not known to the appellant.

¶15

We have heard counsel for the appellant and do not find any manifest error being comm itted by the Ld. Single Judge in declining to grant wages of the intervening period during which the appellant workmen had practically not worked which may require interference.

¶16

¶17

Consequently, the special appeal being devoid of merit

¶18

accordingly dism issed.

¶19

[ JK Ran k a] , J. [ Aj ay Rast ogi] , J.

¶20

dsr/ -

¶21

"All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed"

¶22

Datar Singh
P.S.

Bhagirath Sharma v. R S R T C and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirath Sharma v. R S R T C and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Yadav Vs Chairman and Managing Director

The COMMANDANT.62BN.BSF,SRIGAN Vs Rajendra Singh and Ors.

Rohitash Vs State Home Departmentors

Prayag Singh Rauthore Vs the Managing Director Ajmer andA

M D Ajmer Central Vs Prayag Singh Rauthor Abr

Chief Electoral Officer Vs Om Prakash and Ors.