Dismissed

Chief Manager R S R T C and Anr. v. Gopal Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 Feb 2020SAW/921/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disbursing special appeal against Single Judge's order upholding Labour Court's finding that departmental enquiry was violated natural justice, affirming termination order quashed and back wages awarded to deceased workman's heirs.

What did the court decide?

The limit application dismissed; special appeal dismissed on merits; Single Judge order affirmed; Labour Court award upheld.

Chief Manager R S R T C and Anr. Vs Gopal Singh and… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 921/2015

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20826/2013

¶5

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

¶6

General Manager (Traffic Second) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarter, Jaipur (through Officer in charge)

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Gopal Singh since deceased through his legal heirs.

¶10

1/1 Smt. Shakuntala widow of late Shri Gopal Singh, aged about 45 years.

¶11

1/2 Somendra S/o Late Shri Gopal Singh, 27 years.

¶12

1/3 Ku. Soniya Daughter of late Shri Gopal Singh aged 25 years.

¶13

1/4 Sanjay S/o Late shri Gopal Singh, 21 years. All residents of D-28, Subhash Nagar, Bharatpur.

¶14

Judge, Labour Court, First, Jaipur.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s) : Shri Om Prakash Sheoran For Respondent(s) :

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶18

Judgment

¶19

10/02/2020

¶20

(PER HONB’LE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL)

¶21

(2 of 4)

¶22

[SAW-921/2015]

¶23

The appeal is reported to be barred by 356 days. It is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶24

We have perused the contents of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and are satisfied that the reasons assigned for delay in preferring the appeal are quite unsatisfactory and no plausible explanation has been furnished for inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the application stands dismissed. However, we have examined the case on merits also.

¶25

This intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 19.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20826/2013 whereby, the writ petition filed challenging the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court-I, Jaipur rejecting the application under Section 33(2)(b), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as the award dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court-I, Jaipur whereby, the claim filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein late Gopal Singh was partly allowed, was dismissed.

¶26

Facts in brief as emerge from perusal of the record are that the workman-Gopal Singh, working as Driver with the appellantCorporation, in a departmental enquiry, was imposed with the penalty of removal from services by the appellant-Corporation vide order dated 31.10.1998. In the application filed by the respondent-Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the learned Labour Court-I, vide its order dated 15.2.2011, held the enquiry to be unfair. The claim filed by the workman late Gopal Singh was partly allowed by the Labour Court-I, Jaipur vide its award dated 14.12.2011 on the premise that during pendency of

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

[SAW-921/2015]

¶29

the reference, the workman expired on 28.6.2007 and since the enquiry against him was already held to be unfair vide order dated 15.2.2011, no effective opportunity to rebut the evidence sought to be produced by the Corporation was available to the legal heirs of late workman. The order of termination dated 31.10.1998 was held to be bad in law and the workman was held entitled for back wages and other benefits from the date of termination of his services till the date of his death i.e. 28.6.2007. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed thereagainst.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the orders impugned submitted that the learned Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge has erred in setting aside the order of termination of services of the late workman which was based on departmental enquiry conducted against him as per the Standing Order, 1965; but, did not dispute in all his fairness that late workman was not given opportunity to cross examine the department witnesses.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel and perused the record.

¶32

The Labour Court has, on the basis of material on record, recorded a categorical finding that the enquiry officer instead of recording the evidence of the department in the first instance, recorded the statement of the workman; the disciplinary authority did not supply copy of the charge sheet to the workman; the charges were read to him during the course of the enquiry only, he was not afforded opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the department and there was violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, the learned Singh Judge has rightly found no fault with the award dated 14.12.2011 as on account of death of the workman, his legal heirs were deprived of the opportunity to

¶33

(4 of 4)

¶34

[SAW-921/2015]

¶35

effectively rebut the evidence sought to be produced by the appellant-Corporation. We find no illegality or perversity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court under its intra court appellate jurisdiction.

¶36

Consequently, the special appeal is dismissed on merits also.

¶37

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶38

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶39

RAVI SHARMA /6

Chief Manager R S R T C and Anr. v. Gopal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Manager R S R T C and Anr. v. Gopal Singh and Ors.

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

Smt. Suman Bala Sharma W/O Shri Ashutosh Vashishtha Vs Smt. Manju Rajpal

Ms v D Swami Andcompany Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Central Exciseandors

Vivek Jeph S/O Shri B.R. Meena Vs Union of India

Rajeev Saxena S/O Shri G.P. Saxena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Anita D/O Raghuveer Singh W/O Bhupendra Vs Bhupendra S/O Nemichand

Smt. Shalini Yadav W/O Shri Rohit Yadav Vs Rohit Yadav S/O Late Shri Virendra Singh Yadav