Gopal Lal Rawal S/O Shri Ram Kishan ... vs Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 4046 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3949/2020

Gopal Lal Rawal S/o Shri Ram Kishan Rawal, Aged About 50
Years, Ex Conductor, R/o Sangeeta Sadan, Chhipa Mohalla,
Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     Managing      Director,      Rajasthan         State      Road   Transport
       Corporation Head Office, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.     Chief    Manager,         Rajasthan          State        Road   Transport
       Corporation, Jhalawar Depot, Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
3.     Zonal    Manager,         Rajasthan          State        Road   Transport
       Corporation, Kota Zone, Kota, Rajasthan.
4.     Executive     Director       (Traffic),       Rajasthan      State   Road
       Transport Corporation, Head Office Jaipur Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Ghiya Mr. Ankul Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

26/08/2021

Counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the present writ

petition in view of the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18253/2015 titled as

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs.

Lakhavindra Singh, wherein on 13.04.2018 the following order

was passed:-

"The present writ petition has been filed by the RSRTCemployer challenging the order dt. 2nd September, 2013, and award dt. 23rd June, 2015, passed by the Learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in

(2 of 3) [CW-3949/2020]

Case No. 37/2008 (Lakhavindra Singh Vs. R.S.R.T.C.

through Managing Directors & Ors.). The petitioner has further prayed that the Application filed under Section 33 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may not be held maintainable.

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6055/2015 (The Managing Director and Anr. Vs. Mohan Singh Baghala) has decided the similar controversy vide order dt. 4th November, 2015.

Both the learned counsel submit that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in the same terms as the order dt. 4th November, 2015 passed in (The Managing Director, RSRTC Vs. Mohan Singh Baghala). The operative portion of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench dt. 4th November, 2015 is reproduced hereunder:-

"The paras quoted above clarify that if a workman is not concerned to the pending dispute then complaint under Section 33A of the Act of 1947 would not be maintainable. In view of aforesaid judgment, the view taken by learned court below is not correct. In view of above, impugned order dated 23rd July, 2009 holding application under Section 33A of the Act of 1947 to be maintainable is not sustainable in the eye of law and is accordingly set aside. When application under Section 33A of the Act of 1947 is not maintainable, consequential award dated 9 th January, 2015 passed on a complaint would also go and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent-workman would however be at liberty to raise dispute against the order of termination by approaching to the conciliation officer under Section 10 of the Act of 1947. If settlement is not made then 10 appropriate government would take a decision for its reference. It is because the respondent- employee cannot be made remediless. If complaint under Section 33A is not maintainable then he has a right to raise dispute by approaching to the conciliation officer under Section 10 of the Act of 1947."

This Court had allowed the writ petition of the employer and found that the application filed under Section 33 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not maintainable and as such the consequential award was also set aside, passed on the basis of the order holding the application under Section 33 (A) to be maintainable.

(3 of 3) [CW-3949/2020]

The present writ petition needs to be allowed and the orders dt. 2nd September, 2013 and award dt. 23rd June, 2015 are quashed and set aside. The Writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondent - workman would be at liberty to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for ventilating his grievance against the termination order. The requirement of going to Conciliation Officer is no more in force now in view of amendment in Section 10 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court would take up the matter of the workman as per the procedure provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for deciding the matter and will proceed expeditiously in the matter.

The present writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation."

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands

disposed of with liberty to the workman to approach the Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court against his termination order. The

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court would take up the matter of the

workman as per the procedure provided in the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, for deciding the matter and will proceed expeditiously

in the matter.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

Upendra Pratap Singh /43

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)