Rajasthan High Court
Chief Manager, Rajasthan State ... vs Sh. Sohan Singh S/O Sh. Kishan ... on 30 June, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2958/2021
Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,
Matsya Depot, Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Sohan Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Chand, Matsya Depot.,
Alwar, Resident Of Village Dhurpali, Post-Chandoli, Tehsil
And District - Alwar, Rajasthan. (Deceased) Through His
Legal Representatives.
2. Smt. Kalashi Devi W/o Late Sh. Sohan Singh, Resident Of
Village Dhurpali, Post-Chandoli, Tehsil And District - Alwar,
Rajasthan).
3. Sh. Ravi S/o Late Sh. Sohan Singh, Resident Of Village
Dhurpali, Post-Chandoli, Tehsil And District - Alwar,
Rajasthan).
4. Sh. Sultan S/o Late Sh. Sohan Singh, Resident Of Village
Dhurpali, Post-Chandoli, Tehsil And District - Alwar,
Rajasthan).
5. Smt. Bachan Devi W/o Late Sh. Kishan Chand And Mother
Of Late Sh. Sohan Singh, Resident Of Village Dhurpali,
Post-Chandoli, Tehsil And District - Alwar, Rajasthan).
----Respondents
(2 of 4) [CW-2958/2021]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Chandra Mittal
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment / Order
30/06/2021
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition assailing the
order dated 05.07.2019 whereby the application moved under
Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was
rejected, as the Workman had expired. The Labour Court has
closed the matter and directed for setting aside the removal order
dated 01.10.2001.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the
Workman had expired on 26.11.2008, still the petitioner would
have been given an opportunity of proving the case. In reply, the
workman stated that he had admitted that he had absented from
duty for taking care of his mother and cross-examination can be
done in this regard from the other relatives of the deceased-
petitioner.
3. Learned counsel submits that the case of " Smt. Prem
Kumari Vs. Central Industrial Tribunal(C.I.T)" reported in
1995 (70)FLR 244 would have no application to the present
case.
4. I have considered the submissions and perused the order
dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and
(3 of 4) [CW-2958/2021]
find that the charge-sheet was not served on the Workman and he
therefore, never submitted his reply. The submission of the
petitioner's counsel therefore, is not substantiated and the effect
of charge-sheet having not been served and no reply filed to the
charge-sheet is found to have been correct by the Industrial
Tribunal. Further I do not agree with the contention of learned
counsel that cross-examination relating to the absence can be
done by the relatives. In the judgment passed in Smt. Prem
Kumari (supra) it has held as under:-
"Argument of Shri Agrawal is that the charge could be
proved even after the death of the concerned workman, by
tendering evidence with reference to the contemporaneous
record as the charge was only of not giving the prescribed
standard of work. We do not agree with this argument for
the simple reason that only the deceased workman could
confront the employer with the circumstances in which the
prescribed standard of work could not be given and no
effective cross-examination on this aspect of the matter
could be done by the legal representatives, i.e., the widow of
the deceased workman and his sons. Only the deceased
workman could confront the witnesses of the employer with
such circumstances in which it may not have been possible
for him to give the prescribed standard of work. Therefore,
to say that the work put in by the concerned employee
workman was on record and the requisite standard of work
had been prescribed and therefore the charge could be
proved even against a dead person without causing any
prejudice to him, is wholly misconceived, rather ill-
conceived. In such circumstances, we do not find that the
Tribunal committed any illegality in granting the relief of
wages and other consequential financial benefits to the legal
representatives of the decease workman on the basis of the
Supreme Court decision in Deshraj Gupta v. Industrial
Tribunal, Lucknow for the period from the date of the
termination to the date of the death of the workman. The
order passed by the learned single judge in a writ of
certiorari against the award of the Tribunal does not warrant
any interference and, in our considered opinion, the
directions given by the Tribunal are just and proper and seek
to render substantial justice between the parties. The
impugned order dated November 29, 1991, does not warrant
(4 of 4) [CW-2958/2021]
any interference in the special appeal. This special appeal is
therefore dismissed."
5. This Court has also held in several cases that after the death
of an employee, further departmental proceedings cannot be
continued. Accordingly, the approach adopted by the Industrial
Tribunal, Jaipur cannot be said to be wrongful and faulted and is
liable to be regarded.
6. This Court also finds that the order was passed on 05.07.2019
and the writ petition has been filed in 2021 without giving any
sufficient explanation. It appears that the consequential benefits
to the LRs have not been given. It is however, directed that the
consequential benefits in terms of the award dated 05.07.2019
shall be released to the LRs of the deceased employee within a
period of one month, failing which, they will be free to initiate
contempt proceedings.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of
Rs.1000/- to be deposited with the Rajasthan Bar Council.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
Anu /
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
