Dismissed

The Rajasthan State Transport Corporation v. Murlidhar Sharma S/O Shri Purushottam Sharma

Rajasthan HC26 Aug 2019SAW/617/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by the Rajasthan State Transport Corporation challenging a Single Judge's order. The Single Judge held it arbitrary for the employer to proceed against a workman for old charges after reinstatement via compromise. The High Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision, upholding the dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Rajasthan State Transport Corporation is dismissed, affirming the impugned order of the Single Judge.

The Rajasthan State Transport Corporation Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 617/2019

¶3

The Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman And Managing Director Head Office Parivahan Marg, Chomu House- Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶4

The Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, Through Is Executive Director Traffic Parivahan Marg, Chomu HouseJaipur Rajasthan.

¶5

The Chief Manager, Vidhayadhar Nagar, Rsrtc Jaipur.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Murlidhar Sharma S/o Shri Purushottam Sharma, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste Brahmin R/o Village And Post Chandabaji, TehsilAmer, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan. At Present Working As Conductor, Vidhayadhar Nagar Depot Jaipur Raj.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola

¶11

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶13

Judgment

¶14

26/08/2019

¶15

D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.413/2019:

¶16

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶17

The application is allowed.

¶18

D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No.617/2019:

¶19

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) appeals the decision of the learned Single Judge, who allowed the respondent’s writ-petition.

¶20

The writ-petitioner had worked for about 16 years with the RSRTC, as Conductor when his services were sought to be terminated on the basis of 14 charge-sheets. An application for

¶21

(2 of 2)

¶22

[SAW-617/2019]

¶23

approval was moved under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for this purpose. The Industrial Tribunal by its order dated 13.12.2010, dismissed the application, after which the parties entered into a compromise. The workman agreed to forego his back-wages. Much after his reinstatement and after he was allowed to join his services, the workman/petitioner, was sought to be proceeded against in regard to the other charge-sheets. He, therefore, approached the Court.

¶24

By the impugned order, the Single Judge after noticing all the relevant facts, observed that the charges related to conduct which had occurred over 24 years ago and having regard to the compromise arrived at, it was not fair on the part of the RSRTC to proceed against the workman.

¶25

Learned counsel sought to urge that the Corporation wished to proceed against the workman in regard to the other 13 charge-sheets which had not been proceeded with on account of the termination, which was eventually set aside in 2010. It was submitted that the charge-sheets, therefore, revived.

¶26

This Court notices that the Single Judge observed that ordinarily a challenge to the initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceedings would not be entertained through a writ petition. At the same time, having regard to the conspectus of circumstances whereby the parties have agreed that the workman should be reinstated without back wages, and furthermore that the charges related to conduct which occurred almost 25 years ago, the Single Judge held that the conduct of the RSRTC was arbitrary. This Court affirms the decision; the Single Judge’s view cannot be termed as unreasonable and calling for interference. 6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

¶27

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶28

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ

¶29

KAMLESH KUMAR /S-98

The Rajasthan State Transport Corporation v. Murlidhar Sharma S/O Shri Purushottam Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Rajasthan State Transport Corporation v. Murlidhar Sharma S/O Shri Purushottam Sharma

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

Cce and St JAIPUR-1 (Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur) Vs Sh. Ishwar Das Moolrajani

Raghuvir Singh S/O Shri Ram Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Birendra Singh S/O Mahendra Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan, through Its Principal Secretary

Sandeep Blaggan S/O. Shri Indradev Blaggan Vs Smt. Nathi Devi W/O. Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Jat

Ravi Kumar S/O Shri Ramesh Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramswaroop Meena S/O. Shri Sharwan Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan