Dismissed

General Manager v. Parvat Singh

Rajasthan HC16 Feb 2022CW/1045/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation challenging dismissal of its application under Section 33(2)(b) of ID Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the Corporation's application due to the lack of evidence against the workman, despite his criminal acquittal, upheld the finding, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order dated 10.03.2014 of the Industrial Tribunal maintained.

General Manager Vs Parvat Singh — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1045/2016

¶3

General Manager (Purchase/Store) And Authority Disciplinary Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Parvat Singh S/o Shri Prithvi Singh, By Post Driver, Sanchli, Post Semad, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinayak Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amin Ali

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order

¶10

16/02/2022

¶11

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, against the order dated 10.03.2014 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in case no. M.I.T. 120/2002 whereby, the application filed by the Corporation under Section 33 (2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been dismissed.

¶12

The facts in brief are that the respondent-workman, a driver with the Corporation, was served upon with a charge sheet dated 07.12.2000 with the allegation that on account of his rash and negligent driving of Bus No.RJ-12-P-305 on 19.10.2000, it met with an accident resulting into death of two persons and injuries to two persons with damage to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.900/and the extra consumption of 98 litres diesel. After conducting the inquiry, vide order dated 07.06.2002, the respondent-workman was removed from service, approval whereof, has been rejected by the learned Industrial Tribunal vide order impugned dated 10.03.2014.

¶13

(2 of 3) [CW-1045/2016]

¶14

The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner-Corporation is that findings of the learned Industrial Tribunal are based solely on respondent’s acquittal in the criminal case arising out of the accident and hence, the order impugned dated 10.03.2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶15

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman, supporting the finding recorded by the learned Industrial Tribunal, submitted that the order dated 10.03.2014 has been passed after appreciating the entire evidence available on record which do not warrant any interference of this Court.

¶16

Heard and considered.

¶17

A perusal of the order impugned dated 10.03.2014 reveals that after the domestic inquiry was held to be unfair, the parties were permitted to lead evidence. The petitioner examined three witnesses in support of the allegations in the charge sheet and the workman also appeared in the witness box in defence. After appreciating their evidence, a categorical finding has been recorded by the learned Industrial Tribunal that neither any of these departmental witnesses was present at the spot at the time of accident nor, they have examined any eye witness of the accident including passengers in the vehicle and their evidence was based on hearsay. It was found from the admission of the departmental witnesses that accident occurred on account of malfunction in the steering wheel as claim by the respondent. It has been held by the learned Industrial Tribunal that the Corporation has utterly failed to establish that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent-workman.

¶18

(3 of 3) [CW-1045/2016]

¶19

With regard to extra consumption of diesel, learned Industrial Tribunal has found that the departmental witness Shri Ghanshyam Kumawat has admitted during his cross examination that no such statement was available on record to show extra consumption of diesel which, as a matter of fact, was never checked by him. He has further admitted that there was no material on record to substantiate the allegation about extra consumption of diesel.

¶20

This Court after examining the findings so recorded by the learned Tribunal in the light of evidence available on record, is satisfied that same do not suffer from any infirmity or perversity.

¶21

True, learned Industrial Tribunal has also observed that respondent-workman was honourably acquitted from the charges levelled in the criminal case and hence in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case of Union of India Vs. Naman Singh Shekhawat, 2008 (118) FLR 1121 , the respondent-workman could not have been held guilty of the charges; but, as already held, after analysising the evidence led by the respective parties before it, a categorical finding was also recorded by the learned Industrial Tribunal that the petitioner-Corporation has failed to prove the allegations levelled in the charge sheet. In view thereof, this Court does not find any justification to interfere in the order dated 10.03.2014 under its extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction.

¶22

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶23

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶24

MADAN/55

General Manager v. Parvat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Manager v. Parvat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kavita Meena D/O Kishan Lal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kusum Lata D/O Satyanarayan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sunita D/O Hari Karan W/O Hanuman Vs the State of Rajasthan

Balram S/O Dharam Singh @ Dharam Vs State of Rajasthan

Avdesh Kumar S/O Shri Shyam Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan through Home Secretary

Jagdish S/O Harmukh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan