This court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Labour Court's award upholding the termination of a conductor, finding the enquiry fair, proper, and consistent with Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Writ petition dismissed as misconceived; no interference with the Labour Court's award.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 14862/2010
Mathura Lal Dhakad, Son Of Shri Birda Ram, By Caste Dhakad, Village Ratanpura, Post - Nasirda, Tehsil- Deoli, District- Tonk
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta for Mr. Babu Lal Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinayak Joshi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
16/01/2019
Chargesheet against the petitioner reveals that the petitioner as a conductor has been allowing passengers to travel without ticket since 1991. There as many as 31 different instances when he has been found allowing passengers to travel without ticket. Departmental enquiry was conducted and after having given fair and proper opportunity to the petitioner, he was removed from service. Dispute was raised before the labour Court which found that the enquiry is fair and proper. After holding enquiry to be fair and proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice, proceeding to rejecting claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition assailing the said award dated 11.8.2010.
(2 of 3)
[CW-14862/2010]
Learned counsel for the petitioner also challenges the order dated 9.8.2010 by which the enquiry was declared fair and proper submitting therein that the petitioner was not given fair and proper opportunity as documents which he demanded, were not made available to him.
Learned counsel further submits that the learned labour Court has fell in error taking into consideration the previous conduct for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 11A of the Act of 1947.
I have heard learned counsel at length and find that the petitioner was made available documents along with the chargesheet, he demanded documents relating to the statements of the passengers who were said to be traveled without ticket and the driver since no such statements were recorded thereafter no such record was made available.
Thus, the contention of learned counsel that the documents demanded were not made available, is misconceived as the documents which are not present, cannot be made available to him. That apart, it is noticed that not only the witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer but the petitioner was given due opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and he was also allowed to lead his evidence and also make his own submissions in defence of the chargesheet.
Thus, the order dated 9.8.2010 passed by the Judge, labour Court holding the enquiry to be fair and proper, does not warrant interference and a look into the award dated 11.8.2010 shows that the Judge, labour Court has not only examined the case in light of provisions of Section 11A, but has also looked into the evidence which was recorded by the Enquiry Officer and has
(3 of 3)
[CW-14862/2010]
reached to the conclusion that the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer was correct and did not call for any interference.
This Court approves the findings and the conclusion drawn by the Judge, labour Court and that no interference is required in the award dated 11.8.2010.
Accordingly, the writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Seema/76
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity regarding documents not available due to lack of recorded witness statements.
Whether the labour Court erred in relying on previous conduct when concluding the enquiry was fair and proper under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mathura Lal Dhakad
Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer
Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
