Dismissed

Chief Manager Matayasa Nagar Depot v. Om Prakash S/O Shri Vishambhar Dayal

Rajasthan HC9 Oct 2025SAW/5/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employer challenged approval refusal of a workman's termination after the domestic inquiry was declared unfair. The Tribunal found the absence was justified leave with medical evidence. The Single Judge upheld this; the Division Bench found no ground to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chief Manager Matayasa Nagar Depot Vs Om… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:41143-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 5/2025

¶4

Chief Manager Matayasa Nagar Depot, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Alwar.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Om Prakash S/o Shri Vishambhar Dayal, Driver, Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, Resident Of Village Manjari Khurd, Post Manjari Kala, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar

¶8

The Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Shyam	Sunder Sharma,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	:

¶11

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

¶12

Order

¶13

09/10/2025

¶14

The challenge is to the order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the order dated 22.11.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) has been upheld.

¶15

Vide impugned order dated 22.11.2010, the application filed by the appellant-writ petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1947’) had been rejected and the Tribunal refused the approval of the termination order passed against the workman dated 08.10.2001.

¶16

It was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that inquiry was declared unfair by the learned Labour Court,

¶17

[2025:RJ-JP:41143-DB]

¶18

[SAW-5/2025]

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

whereafter the appellant was given chance to prove his case before the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the proceedings and reached to the conclusion that respondents had not committed any delinquency and his seeking leave was justified. It cannot be said to be willful absence.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge has failed to examine the contention relating to wrongful conclusion drawn by the learned Labour Court relating to the inquiry. He also submits that judgment passed in Ajmer Central

¶22

Cooperative Bank Limited vs The Labour Judge and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer & Ors. : 2016(1) WLC (Raj.) UC 497 would not be applicable as in the said case it was held that when an inquiry is declared unfair, employer has no right to plead facts. Whereas, in the facts of the present case, the employer has failed to lead evidence by the learned Labour Court which was not objected by the workman.

¶23

We have considered the contentions and carefully perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. We find that the learned Single Judge has rejected the contentions raised by the appellant relating to the aspect of inquiry having been conducted in accordance with law. In the case of Ajmer Central Cooperative Bank Limited vs The Labour

¶24

Judge and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer & Ors.(supra), the Court reached to the conclusion that once the inquiry was declared unfair, the same was required to be challenged by the appellant and as the appellant did not challenge the inquiry to be unfair, disapproval to application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 cannot be interfered with.

¶25

[2025:RJ-JP:41143-DB]

¶26

[SAW-5/2025]

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

We have also independently examined the contentions and find that while after the inquiry was declared unfair, the learned Labour Court proceeded to examine the method and manner in which inquiry was conducted and the evidence which was brought on record. After having considered the evidence on record, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that there were documents produced by the workman reflecting that the respondent had submitted an application seeking leave on the ground that his mother was suffering from illness. Certificate of medical illness of his mother has also been produced. Having looked into these aspects, the Tribunal proceeded to hold the termination to be unjustified as it could have be said that employer has willfully marked him absent from duty.

¶29

Having reached to the said conclusions, the learned Single Judge proceeded to uphold the order of Tribunal. At the same time, we also find that although there was no occasion for the Tribunal to have granted the employer, namely the appellant to lead evidence, however, if such chance has been given and in that too the appellant failed to prove the charge, no interference to the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal was warranted. Thus, for the reasons as assigned by the learned Single Judge as well as what we have stated hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and learned Industrial Tribunal.

¶30