Dismissed

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Rohitash Meena Son of Shri Madho Lal Driver

Rajasthan HC17 Sept 2020CW/7343/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner RSRTC filed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal's rejection of an application for approval of removal under Section 33(2)(b). Court upheld Tribunal's view that Section 33(2)(b) includes power to verify fairness of enquiry and dismissed petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No statutory relief granted to respondent-workman against punishment order.

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7343/2020

¶3

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vidhyadhar Nagar Depot, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Rohitash Meena Son Of Shri Madho Lal Driver, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Resident Of Mukam Post Fatehpura, Via Gurara, District Sikar (Rajasthan).

¶7

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rewar Mal Bairwa, Adv.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶9

Judgment / Order

¶10

17/09/2020

¶11

Learned counsel submits that application was moved under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for seeking approval of the punishment awarded to the respondent-workman. The learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur was only required to look into the fact that whether mandatory provisions of the Act of 1947 were followed or not by the petitioner and was not required to look into validity of the enquiry. Learned counsel further submits that one months' notice pay was paid to the respondent-workman and therefore, the punishment order was required to be approved and the learned Industrial Tribunal has committed an error in not proving the punishment awarded to the respondent-workman.

¶12

After carefully considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 was moved by the

¶13

(2 of 3)

¶14

[CW-7343/2020]

¶15

petitioner on 24/08/1998. The same was in relation to a chargesheet dated 04/05/1996 wherein allegations were that the respondent-workman had become absent from duty from 06/03/1994 and joined his duties on 02/04/1994. Thereafter, he again absented from duty from 03/08/1994 and joined on 22/09/1994 and again absented from 05/11/1994 and joined on 09/11/1994. He further absented from duty from 11/11/1994 and joined on 13/11/1994. Thereafter he again remained absent from duty from 17/06/1995 and joined on 03/07/1995 and again remained absent on 18/07/1995 and then again absented from 20/08/1995 and joined on 09/04/1996. The application under Section 33(2)(b) was also in relation to another charge-sheet dated 19/12/1996 wherein the allegations were that he remained absent from duty from 21/05/1996 and joined on 08/08/1995 and thereafter remained absent from 16/08/1996 and joined on 26/09/1996. He again absented from 16/10/1996 and joined on 14/11/1996 and thereafter again absented from 27/11/1996 and joined on 06/12/1996.

¶16

The learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur had declared the enquiry as unfair and unjustified vide order dated 31/07/2017 whereafter the petitioner-RSRTC sought permission for conducting enquiry before the learned Industrial Tribunal itself and statements of witnesses were recorded whereafter the learned Industrial Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the complainantPokhar Singh was not brought into evidence and the witness on behalf of the petitioner admitted that attendance register was not produced before the learned Tribunal. In cross-examination, it was also admitted that with regard to other so-called absence, no attendance register was produced. On behalf of the respondent-

¶17

(3 of 3)

¶18

[CW-7343/2020]

¶19

workman, it was stated that he had been on duty. Service book was also not produced. Keeping in view the said facts, the learned Industrial Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the punishment order passed by the petitioner of removal is not in accordance with the legal evidence and accordingly rejected the approval application.

¶20

The contention of learned counsel for petitioner that merely giving one month's salary in lieu of notice, the formality regarding seeking approval is completed and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to examine validity of the enquiry does not have any basis. The power provided under the Act of 1947 to the learned Tribunal is essentially for the purpose of maintaining peace and healthy environment for development of industries. The provisions of the Act of 1947 are mandatory and if an enquiry has been conducted fairly and justifiably and even before the Tribunal, the concerned Tribunal reaches to a conclusion to the said effect. This Court would not substitute its own opinion while examining the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶21

Keeping in view thereof, this Court is of the firm view that no interference is warranted and there is no jurisdictional error committed nor there is any perversity in the order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶22

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶23

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶24

Raghu/36

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Rohitash Meena Son of Shri Madho Lal Driver

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Rohitash Meena Son of Shri Madho Lal Driver

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

Jagdamba Prasad Sharma Vs Tehsildar Tehsil Uniyara and Ors.

Mohit Singh@Bablu@Manoj S/O Shri Rajendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Aasha Kunwar D/O Shri Sardar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sumer Singh Jogi Son of Shri Budh Ram Jogi Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagirath Jat Son of Shri Lal Ram Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajeev Trivedi Son of Shri Murlidhar, Vs Divisional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation