Rajasthan High Court
Chief Manager, Rajasthan State ... vs Shri Bhagwan Singh S/O Shri ... on 2 February, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21546/2019
Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,
Jodhpur Aagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Tansukh Ram, Daily Wages Driver,
Resident Of Village And Po-Kanwar Pura, Via-Palawas, Distt-Sikar
(Raj)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
02/02/2021
1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition assails the order
dated 12.02.2019 passed by the Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur,
whereby the application moved under Section 33(2)(b) of the
Industrial Disputes Act filed by the petitioner seeking
approval/dismissal order dated 11.08.1998 was rejected.
2. Learned counsel submits that learned Industrial Tribunal has
wrongfully examined the evidence and has reached to wrong
conclusion. Learned counsel submits that the order of learned
Tribunal dated 12.02.2019 deserves to be set aside as the
evidence, which had been led by the petitioner after the enquiry
was declared unfair, clearly deposed the misconduct of the
workman of having beaten up the staff and also of having
damaged the vehicle.
(2 of 4) [CW-21546/2019]
3. Learned counsel submits that the Industrial Tribunal while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) is not required to
reach conclusions relating to the evidence recorded and has to
only prima facie see that whether the order of termination was
correct or not on the basis of evidence.
4. I have considered the submissions as above.
5. In the case of John D'Souza Vs. Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation, reported in 2019 (14) SCALE, the
Apex Court reconsidered the scope relating to jurisdiction under
Section 33(2)(b) of the Labour Court and it was observed that the
Labour Court as the Tribunal can permit the parties to adduce the
evidence if the domestic inquiry was suffering from any defect or
was in violation of principles of natural justice or was barred by
unfair labour practice. The Court relied upon the judgment passed
in Mysore Steel Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jitendr Chandra Kar &
Ors., reported in (1971) 1 LLR 543 and in Lalla Ram Vs.
D.C.M. Works Ltd., reported in (1978) 3 SCC 1. It was also
relied upon the Judgment passed in Punjab National Bank Ltd.
Vs. Workmen, reported in (1960) 1 SCR 806 and
distinguished the judgment passed in Cholan Roadways Limited
vs G. Thirugnanasambandam, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 241
and held as under:-
"The Labour Court or Tribunal, therefore, while
holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) cannot invoke
the adjudicatory powers vested in them under
Section 10(i)(c) and(d) of the Act nor can they in the
process of formation of their prima facie view under
Section 33(2)(b), dwell upon the proportionality of
punishment, as erroneously done in the instant case,
(3 of 4) [CW-21546/2019]
for such a power can be exercised by the Labour
Court or Tribunal only under Section 11A of the Act."
6. Keeping in view above, this Court finds that the Tribunal after
giving a finding that the enquiry conducted was unfair, examined
the evidence recorded before it and prima facie from the evidence
reached to conclusion that the charge levelled was not made out
as conclusions and opinion drawn by the Tribunal would not be
substituted by re-visiting the evidence, by this Court. The scope of
writ jurisdiction cannot be extended as of an appeal against the
order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The Supreme Court in the
case of Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Khem Chand and Anr. is
held as under:-
"9. We have also perused the award dated 7-
12-1989 passed by the Labour Court. The
Labour Court in the concluding part of its award
has held that the charges framed against the
workman are charges of misconduct of serious
nature and, therefore, it agreed with the
argument of Management that it was not in the
interest of Management and industrial peace to
retain such a person in service who was guilty
of creating indiscipline in the factory which
affects the production of the factory adversely.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the
Labour Court came to the conclusion that the
Management had succeeded in proving the
charges against the workman before the Court.
Hence, the Labour Court held the dismissal of
the workman from service from 8-3-1976 by
the Management as justified, proper and lawful
and the concerned workman was held to be not
entitled to receive any benefit or relief.
However, the High Court, as stated earlier,
interfered with the factual and categorical
findings of the Labour Court and ordered
reinstatement with back wages and other
benefits. In our opinion, the High Court while
exercising powers under writ jurisdiction cannot
deal with aspects like whether the quantum of
punishment meted out by the management to a
workman for a particular misconduct is
sufficient or not. This apart, the High Court
while exercising powers under the writ
(4 of 4) [CW-21546/2019]
jurisdiction cannot interfere with the factual
findings of the Labour Court which are based on
appreciation of facts adduced before it by
leading evidence. In our opinion, the High Court
has gravely erred in holding that the evidence
of Respondent 1 was not considered by the
Labour Court and had returned the finding that
the evidence of Respondent 1 did not inspire
any confidence. We are of the opinion that the
High Court is not right in interfering with the
well-considered order passed by the Labour
Court confirming the order of dismissal."
7. This Court also does not find any perversity in the order
passed by the Judge, Industrial Tribunal.
8. In view thereof, no interference is warranted. The writ
petition is devoid on merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
Arun/62
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
