Dismissed

Bhanwar Lal Meharshi v. the Judge Labour Court NO.2 Ja

Rajasthan HC5 Aug 2022CW/940/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a conductor of the Transport Corporation, challenged an award and termination order, claiming violation of natural justice. The court held that since the services were withdrawn simplicitor during the probation period, the High Court would not interfere. The citation of Pawan Kumar Agrawal was distinguished as inapplicable to probation cases.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed and pending applications were disposed of, upholding the simplicitor withdrawal order simplicitor.

Bhanwar Lal Meharshi Vs the Judge Labour… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 940/2001

¶3

Bhanwar Lal Meharshi, son of Shri Satya narayan Meharishi, aged about 41 years, Ex-Conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jhunjhunu Depot, resident of 7/31, Meharshi Sadan, Ward No.1, Sri Madhopur, District- Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Judge Labour Court No.2, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶7

The Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶8

Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶9

The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Tr

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinayak Joshi

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

05/08/2022

¶15

The present writ petition is filed with the following

¶16

prayer:

¶17

“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the award dated 22.11.2000 (Annexure-22), passed by the learned Labour Court IInd, Rajasthan, Jaipur may kindly be quashed & set aside;

¶18

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the termination order dated 23.04.1987 (Annexure-9), passed by the respondents be also quashed and set aside; and

¶19

(iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction it may be directed to the respondents that the petitioner be

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[CW-940/2001]

¶22

reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and other service benefits as if no termination order was passed; so also any other relief with costs be granted.”

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of a Conductor on 06.03.1984 after due selection by the selection committee. The petitioner was terminated without notice on 24.03.1984. On a departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner, he was reappointed vide order dated 11.07.1985. However, he was not given benefit of past service as he was treated as a fresh appointee. Thereafter, the petitioner was retrenched on 02.11.1985. The petitioner appealed against the said retrenchment and the appeal was allowed vide order dated 20.12.1985. Subsequently, a fresh appointment was given to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was again retrenched on 16.06.1986. On appeal, the petitioner was appointed afresh on 26.08.1986, without benefit of past service. Vide order dated 14.04.1987, respondent No.3 appointed the petitioner on probation in the regular pay scale. It is further submitted that the petitioner was terminated vide impugned order dated 23.04.1987, without conducting any enquiry and without providing any opportunity of hearing, based on false complaints. Industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against order dated 23.04.1987 was referred to the learned Labour Court, who vide impugned order/award dated 22.11.2000, arbitrarily and illegally, without properly assessing the charges and without considering the record, held the petitioner guilty of charges. Assailing the impugned orders dated 23.04.1987 and 22.11.2000, the present writ petition is filed, on the ground that there is violation of

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CW-940/2001]

¶26

principles of natural justice as no enquiry was ever conducted. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment of Pawan

¶27

Kumar Agrawals Vs. General Manager-II and Appointing

¶28

Auth. State Bank of India and Ors reported in (2015) 15 SCC 184 . It is further submitted that respondents failed to discharge burden of proof and that the Ld. Labour Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence and material on record and arrived at a perverse finding, which is legally and factually unjustified.

¶29

Per contra , learned counsel for the department has submitted that the petitioner was on probation, which is evident from the order dated 14.04.1987. The probation period was for a period of one year. As per the settled position of law, during the probation period, the employer has every right to withdraw the services of probationary without any notice or any reason. It is further submitted that simplicitor withdrawal order was passed without any stigma or any allegation. The order dated 23.04.1987 confirm the said view point of the respondent. The order simply states that services of the petitioner are no longer required. It is further submitted that though the learned labour court exceeded the scope of order dated 23.04.1987 by allowing examination/cross examination of witness, nevertheless the learned labour court rightly arrived at a logical conclusion after duly considering the evidence and material on record.

¶30

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides, scanned the record and considered judgments cited at Bar.

¶31

Considering the fact that order dated 23.04.1987 was simplicitor withdrawal/discharge from services during the course of probation, which was awarded on 14.04.1987 with probation period of one year, and by relying upon judgment of Hon’ble

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CW-940/2001]

¶34

Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Sirsa vs. Munshi Ram reported in (2005) 2 SCC 382 , this court is of the opinion that the present writ petition, in the present facts and circumstances, calls for no interference. The judgment of Pawan Kumar Agrawala (supra) , relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in the present case as the petitioner was simply withdrawn/discharged from service during the course of probation. 5. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.

¶35

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶36

JKP/5

Bhanwar Lal Meharshi v. the Judge Labour Court NO.2 Ja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal Meharshi v. the Judge Labour Court NO.2 Ja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Sharma S/O Shri Basant Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Kiran @ Dabali W/O Ramswaroop @ Chandmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shriram S/O Shri Kishanlal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Chaturbhuj Lohar Vs State and Ors.

Shri Mahesh Kumar S/O Shreekishan Ji Vs Shri Kalu Ali S/O Nawab Ali

Bhairuram Gurjar Son of Shri Bhagwan Sahay Gurjar, Vs Shri Abhay Kumar Principal Secretary