Mohan Lal Bairwa vs Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corp. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4034 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4034 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 May, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mohan Lal Bairwa vs Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corp. ... on 4 May, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023/RJJD/013415]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7194/2021

Mohan Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Kanheya Lal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village And Post Ladpura, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corp., (Rsrtc), Through Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The General Manager (Admin. Second), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Executive Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarters, Jaipur (Raj.)

4. The Chief Manager, Rajastahn State Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara Depot, Bhilwara (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Lal Acharya For Respondent(s) : -

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

04/05/2023

1. By way of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and

award dated 01.10.2018, passed by the Judge, Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as

"the Tribunal"), whereby the reference made at the instance of the

petitioner has been decided against him.

2. The facts appertains are that when the petitioner was

working as a Driver in the respondent - Rajasthan State Road

Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the

[2023/RJJD/013415] (2 of 4) [CW-7194/2021]

Corporation"), an accident occurred due to his negligence. A

charge-sheet dated 06.04.1998 and later on an office order dated

24.03.2001 came to be issued whereby his services were

terminated on the ground of rash and negligent driving and

causing death of one Babulal.

3. A reference came to be made by the State Government at

the petitioner's request on 24.04.2013, requiring the Labour Court

to determine whether the termination of petitioner's services vide

order dated 24.03.2001 was justified and legal and if not, the

relief and damage to which the petitioner was entitled to.

4. Learned Labour Court by a detailed order passed on

01.10.2018 rejected the reference by the State and held the

petitioner's termination to be valid.

5. Mr. Gopal Lal Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner

argued that the learned Tribunal has rejected the reference simply

being barred by the principle of res-judicata because, one matter

was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur on dispute

being raised by respondent No.2 under Section 33(2)(b) of the

Industrial Disputes Act.

6. On 16.09.2022, a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed

the counsel for the petitioner to produce copy of the proceedings

pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. The same has been

produced on 14.02.2023.

7. On perusal of the copy of proceedings produced by the

petitioner, this Court finds that such proceedings have been

culminated, however, in light of the judgment and award dated

01.10.2018, passed by the learned Tribunal.

[2023/RJJD/013415] (3 of 4) [CW-7194/2021]

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned

Tribunal has seriously erred in holding the pendency of said

proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur act as res-

judicata or a bar qua the proceedings referred to it by the State

Government.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

10. A simple look at the impugned award dated 01.10.2018

shows that the petitioner's argument is absolutely misconceived

and factually incorrect.

11. A perusal of the following para at page 4 of the impugned

award reveals that the Tribunal, while duly noting the factum of

pendency of the proceedings at Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and in

light of request made by respondent to proceed with the

proceedings has made a conscious decision to decide the

reference on merit instead of non-suiting the petitioner on the

ground of res-judicata.

";g mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{kh us blh vk"k; dk ,d izkFkZuk i= bl U;k;ky; ds le{k fnukad 2-9-2015 dks is"k fd;k Fkk] ftlds laca/k esa fnukad 17-11-2015 dks vkns"k ikfjr dj bl ekeys dh dk;Zokgh dks LFkfxr fd;k x;k Fkk] ysfdu ckn esa foi{kh dh gh vksj ls fnukad 10-5-2017 dks ,d izkFkZuk i= is"k dj ;g fuosnu fd;k x;k fd mUgsa vkS|kfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj esa yfEcr izdj.k dh izxfr dh tkudkjh ugha gS rFkk oSls Hkh izkFkhZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/k0 1947 ¼ftls iapkV esa vkxs vf/k0 1947 ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk½ dh /kkjk 33 ¼,½ ds rgr ;k jsQjsUl ds tfj;s izdj.k dk fu.kZ; djok ldrk gS] vr% bl izdj.k esa vkxs dk;Zokgh dh tk;sA Lo;a foi{kh }kjk fn;s x;s mDr izkFkZuk i= ls ;g Li'V gS fd vc foi{kh mDr fcUnq ij cy ugha ns jgk gSA blh Øe esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{kh ds mDr izkFkZuk i= ds i"pkr~ bl U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k esa dk;Zokgh vkxs c<kbZ xbZ vkSj fnukad 3-10-2017 dks ?kjyw tkap dh oS/[email protected]/k lEerk ds laca/k esa vkns"k ikfjr fd;k x;k] vr% bl ifjis{; esa vc bl izdj.k dk vafre vkns"k ikfjr djuk mfpr gksxkA"

[2023/RJJD/013415] (4 of 4) [CW-7194/2021]

12. That apart, learned Tribunal has held petitioner's termination

to be legal, as he was negligent and it was because of his fault,

another Driver Babulal had died.

13. No other argument was advanced by learned counsel for the

petitioner.

14. In view of the aforesaid, since the very foundation of the

argument, which Mr. Acharya has advanced, is missing and the

reference has been decided on merit, this Court does not find it to

be a case which merits admission.

15. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on correct

appreciation of the evidence. The same cannot be held as

perverse. No interference is warranted.