Dismissed¶¶32

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Sh. Prem Singh S/O Sh. Gokul Singh

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2026SAW/123/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employer's special appeal against dismissal of its writ petition upholding Labour Court's rejection of a Section 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act approval application: departmental inquiry and charges held perverse because the Department's witnesses admitted sanctioned leave on the alleged absence dates; no jurisdictional error found; appeal and pending applications dismissed (Rajasthan HC Jaipur DB, 15.01.2026; RSRTC Tonk Depot v. Prem Singh, driver/workman).

What did the court decide?

On examination of the record placed before the learned Labour Court, the Department's own witness admitted that on the relevant date (first charge-sheet) the workman was on sanctioned leave due to the death of his grandfather ¶¶30

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sh. Prem Singh S/O Sh. Gokul Singh — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any jurisdictional error in the Labour Court's order rejecting the approval application under Section 33(2)(b), warranting interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge +2 more

¶¶32

Court's answer

There is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned Labour Court and no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

¶¶30

Key takeaways

With regard to the second charge-sheet likewise, the Department's witness admitted that the workman was on sanctioned leave for the dates on which he was shown to be absentratio¶¶30
Considering the statement of witness of the Department, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the Departmentratio¶¶31
The Division Bench is in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 123/2021 (Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench; Justices Inderjeet Singh and Ravi Chirania), decided 15.01.2026 — dismissed. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Tonk Depot appealed against the learned Single Judge's order dated 14.12.2020 dismissing its writ petition, which had challenged the Labour Court's order dated 03.01.2020 rejecting its application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of the dismissal from service of the respondent-workman on charges of absence from duty. The Labour Court had held the departmental inquiry and its findings wholly perverse: on both charge-sheets the Department's own witnesses admitted that the workman was on sanctioned leave on the alleged dates of absence (in one case owing to the death of his grandfather; in the other, leave from 25th to 27th April, 2001 covering absence claimed on 26th and 27th April, 2001). The Division Bench found no jurisdictional error in the Labour Court's order, expressed complete agreement with the learned Single Judge, and dismissed the appeal together with all pending application(s), if any.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:1690-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 123/2021

¶4

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Tonk Depot.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Gokul Singh, Driver, Resident Of Village And Post Kuchawati, Tehsil - Deeg, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Utkarsh Dubey on behalf of
	Mr. Prateek Mathur
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. ManojPareek

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order

¶11

15/01/2026

¶12

This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that, before the learned Single Judge, the appellant challenged the order passed by the learned Labour Court whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was rejected on the ground that the departmental inquiry was wholly perverse and the findings recorded therein were also perverse.

¶14

Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition held as under:-

¶15

“I have considered the submissions as above.

¶16

It is a case where an approval was sought for the order of dismissal from service passed in the enquiry conducted against a Conductor, who was found to be absent from duty on a particular date i.e. 17th November, 2001. The witness of the

[2026:RJ-JP:1690-DB]

[SAW-123/2021]

(2 of 3)

RSRTC himself admitted that the workman was on leave from 16th November, 2000 to 15th December, 2000 on account of death of his grandfather and thus the duty assigned to him on 17th November, 2001 was wrongful and erroneous.

¶21

The finding given by the Inquiry Officer that the workman was absent from duty on 17th November 2001 is ipso facto perverse and the finding accordingly of the Industrial Tribunal does not warrant interference. Similarly for the next charge levelled against the workman of not attending the duties on 26th April, 2001 and 27th April, 2001 was also found to be perverse. The witness of the RSRTC admits that the workman was granted leave from 25th April, 2001 to 27th April, 2001 thus he could not have been absent from duty on 26th April, 2001 and 27th April, 2001 as he was already on leave from 25th April, 2001. Such a charge levelled has been found to be perverse. The enquiry has been accordingly held to be perverse by the Tribunal.

¶22

The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Industrial Tribunal had treated enquiry to be fair earlier, the approval should have been given is wholly misconceived. It is one aspect that enquiry is fair i.e. principles of natural justice have been followed and opportunity of hearing and crossexamination have been given to the delinquent. However, the other aspect is whether enquiry itself and the charge levelled itself is perverse or not. If facts show that the charge itself is wholly perverse, there can be no approval to such an enquiry proceedings and the punishment awarded in such enquiry proceedings. The learned Industrial Tribunal has thus rightly examined the case and reached to correct conclusion while passing order dated 03.01.2020 rejecting the application under Section 33(2)(b). The consequence thereto shall accordingly followed. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that the proper procedure was followed by the Department while conducting the inquiry. He

[2026:RJ-JP:1690-DB]

[SAW-123/2021]

(3 of 3)

further submits that the workman had remained absent from duty without prior sanction of leave.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶30

On examination of the record placed before the learned Labour Court, it is evident that with regard to the first chargesheet, the Department’s own witness admitted that on the relevant date the workman was on sanctioned leave due to the death of his grandfather. Similarly, with regard to the second charge-sheet, the Department’s witness admitted that the workman was on sanctioned leave for the dates on which he was shown to be absent.

¶31

Considering the statement of witness of the Department, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the Department.

¶32

In our considered view, there is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned Labour Court and we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 10. In that view of the matter, we are in a complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The present appeal is accordingly, dismissed. All the pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.

¶33

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶34

(RAVI CHIRANIA),J

¶35

Upendra Pratap Singh /12

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Sh. Prem Singh S/O Sh. Gokul Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Sh. Prem Singh S/O Sh. Gokul Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Management Committee Vs Smt. Harsha Vadoriya W/O Shri Prabhakar Vadoriya

The State of Rajasthan Vs Anjana Kumari D/O Shri Mahendra Singh W/O Shri Surendra Kumar

The State of Rajasthan Vs Subhita D/O Shri Dariya Singh

The Commissioner Vs Narendar Singh S/O Shri Jagdish Singh

The Union of India Vs No. 6371298 Ex-Sep (Reservist) Sultan Singh S/O Shri Anna Ram

The Union of India Vs Smt. Gindo Devi Wd/O No. 13651106 Gdsm (Reservist) Gopi Chand