Dismissed

Chief Manager R S R T C v. Smt Hardei

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2019CW/14055/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal's order quashing a removal due to procedural violations. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the enquiry was unfair as the charge-sheet was never served to the workman. The petier corporation was directed to release benefits within six months.

What did the court decide?

The High Court directed the petitioner corporation to release consequential benefits to the legal representatives within six months.

Chief Manager R S R T C Vs Smt Hardei — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 14055/2014

¶3

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bundi Depot, Bundi

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Hardei And Ors, Legal Heirs Of Charan Singh Deceased, Ex. Conductor S/o Shri Harchandi, Village Nagla Dadu, Post Wahaz, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinayak Joshi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Gupta, Adv.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment / Order

¶9

18/01/2019

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has proceeded to declare the enquiry as unfair on an application moved under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has also passed final order on the same date holding the removal as illegal and unjustified and disapproved the same.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation submits that the respondent-workman deliberately did not participate in the enquiry whereas notices were issued to him to participate.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation at length who vehemently argued that the course adopted by the learned Industrial Tribunal was unjustified and erroneous.

¶13

A look at the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal shows that the respondent-workman, who is now deceased, had set up his submissions against the removal order pointing out that

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CW-14055/2014]

¶16

no notice was served upon him of the enquiry. The said workman had absented himself for only five days on account of an injury caused in his right finger and within five days, a charge-sheet was issued to him which was never served upon him. It was his further submission that he had remained unwell and also submitted medical certificates showing him remaining on medical treatment from 16/04/2000 to 15/05/2000, however, it was only informed to him through paper notice that the enquiry has been completed and thus, he prayed that the enquiry be declared unfair. The Tribunal examined the record and reached to the conclusion that the charge-sheet was never served upon the respondent-workman. The absence of the respondent-workman was on account of the injury caused and remaining unwell for the said period and that the enquiry had been initiated by a chargesheet dated 21/04/2000 for remaining absent from 16/04/2000 but even as per paper publication, the reference regarding enquiry having been completed was not made. Even in the corrigendum issued on 13/09/2000 no such mention was made. Thus, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the enquiry is unfair.

¶17

Having reached to the said conclusion and finding that the workman had expired, there was no occasion left for allowing the management to conduct enquiry before it and thus, the Tribunal had proceeded to pass order of disapproval of the removal order. 6. This Court finds that the course adopted by the learned Tribunal does not call for any interference as the same is in accordance with law and according to the settled principles. This Court is satisfied that the principles of natural justice have not been followed while conducting domestic enquiry and in passing the order of removal and the learned Tribunal was well within its

¶18

(3 of 3)

¶19

[CW-14055/2014]

¶20

powers not to approve such a removal order passed on the basis of a defective enquiry.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The workman is represented by his legal representatives. The petitionercorporation shall take all steps for release of the consequential benefits to the legal representatives in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal expeditiously but not later than six months.

¶22

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶23

Raghu/56

Chief Manager R S R T C v. Smt Hardei

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Manager R S R T C v. Smt Hardei

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

Bharat Lal Meena S/O Shri Ram Narayan Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

O/L of M/S Sidh Plantation and Farms Ltd. Vs Manak Chand Nahata and Others

Sheikh Nahidullah Khan Son of Shri Azizullah Khan, Vs Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation

Govindram Sharma S/O Shri Kanhaiyalal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Constable Suresh Kumar Vs U O I and Ors.

C M R S R T C Vs Ranveer Singh and Anr.