Petitioners challenged the Labour Court's award reinstating a terminated workman. The High Court held no ground for interference, dismissing the writ petition.
The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12874/2019
1/2. Mahendra S/o Sh. Roopdas, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Rohit, District Pali.
1/3. Anil S/o Sh. Roopdas, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Rohit, District Pali.
1/4. Ghanshyam S/o Sh. Roopdas, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Rohit, District Pali.
1/5. Bebi S/o Sh. Roopdas, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Rohit, District Pali.
1/6. Pintu S/o Sh. Roopdas, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Rohit, District Pali.
1/7. Manju D/o Sh. Roopdas, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Rohit, District Pali.
1/8. Neetu D/o Sh. Roopdas, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Rohit, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit For Respondent(s) :
(2 of 3)
[CW-12874/2019]
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
18/11/2019
Petitioner-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 23.05.2017 passed by the Labour Court, whereby, the reference sought by the workman was allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Labour Court has erred in setting aside the termination order passed by the petitioner against the workman Roopdas. Petitioners had failed to establish the allegation against the workman with regard to embezzlement of the funds, but it was duly established before the Labour Court that 15 passengers were travelling in the bus without tickets.
During the pendency of the dispute, workman had died and his legal representatives were brought on record.
Roopdas (workman) had served a demand notice challenging his termination order dated 01.01.2005 passed against him. Dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Jodhpur for adjudication. The Labour Court after considering evidence on record held that, although, allegation had been levelled against the workman that at the time of checking the bus it was found that 15 passengers were travelling without tickets, but, the statements of the passengers had not been recorded. Moreover, the blank tickets were also not taken in possession and the
(3 of 3)
[CW-12874/2019]
amount of Rs.45/- alleged to have been taken by the workman from the passengers was not recovered.
The reasons given by the Labour Court while setting aside the termination order do not suffer from vice of the illegality and call for no interference.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, no ground for interference in the impugned award while exercising writ jurisdiction is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA),J
8-amit/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's award setting aside a termination order against a workman.
Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sirohi, among others
Lrs Of Roopdas S/o Sh. Balakdas, among others
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
