JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In both the matters, the parties are same and second matter arises out of order passed in first matter, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed off, by this common judgment. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that workman/respondent No. 1-Ranjeet Singh Choudhary was holding the post of Conductor in the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. He was served with a Charge-sheet No. 552, dated 21.02.1994 and Charge-sheet No. 349, dated 02.05.1992. The Enquiry Officer found both the charges to be proved and on the basis of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 29.04.1997(Annexure-1), whereby service of respondent No. 1 was terminated. The appellant-Corporation filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as `the Act') before Industrial Tribunal for grant of approval to the termination order. During pendency of the above application, the Industrial Tribunal considered the question relating to fair and proper enquiry and vide its order dated 03.02.1999(Annexure-2), declared the enquiry against respondent No. 1 as unfair and improper. The learned representative of the appellant-Corporation sought an opportunity to prove the charges in the Tribunal by adducing evidence, which was granted to it. Thereafter, both the parties led their respective evidence in respect of both the charges. The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 21.08.2004 (Annexure-7), discussed and appreciated the evidence and recorded a finding that the Corporation has failed to prove the charges against the workman and consequently, while rejecting the application of the Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, refused to approve the termination order of workman/respondent No. 1, dated 29.04.1997. 4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 21.08.2004, the Corporation filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2704/2005, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide its order dated 16.01.2008. Feeling dissatisfied with the same, the present D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 107/2008 has been preferred by the appellant-Corporation. 5. After passing of the order dated 21.08.2004, the workman filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act before the Labour Court, Jaipur for computation of the amount. The said application was disposed of by the Labour Court vide order dated 27.10.2006. The total amount of Rs. 4,90,332/- was computed, out of which, Rs. 5. After passing of the order dated 21.08.2004, the workman filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act before the Labour Court, Jaipur for computation of the amount. The said application was disposed of by the Labour Court vide order dated 27.10.2006. The total amount of Rs. 4,90,332/- was computed, out of which, Rs. 67,130/- were ordered to be deducted in CPF Account and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,23,202/-, was found to be payable to the workman. 6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 27.10.2006, the Corporation filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1149/2007, which was also dismissed by the Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.01.2008. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant-Corporation has filed the present D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 1216/2008. 7. Submission of the learned counsel for appellants is that the Industrial Tribunal committed an illegality in recording a finding that both the charges are not proved against the workman, whereas from the evidence available on record, the charges were proved. He submitted that there was limited scope for the Industrial Tribunal to hold, that charges are not proved. He also submitted that looking to the gravity of the charges, it was not proper on the part of the Industrial Tribunal to reject the application of the appellants for approval of the termination order. The application ought to have been allowed after recording a finding that charges are proved against the workman. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal dated 21.08.2004, is not legal and the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. 8. So far as another appeal of the appellant-Corporation is concerned, learned counsel submitted that in case Appeal No. 107/2008 is allowed, then second order passed by the Labour Court as well as the order of Single Bench will automatically be set aside, as the said appeal is consequential to Appeal No. 107/2008, filed by the Corporation. So far as factual aspect regarding computation of amount is concerned, he has not challenged the same. 9. Learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal/Labour Court and also the Single Bench. So far as factual aspect regarding computation of amount is concerned, he has not challenged the same. 9. Learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal/Labour Court and also the Single Bench. He submitted that from the order dated 21.08.2004, it is clear that evidence adduced by the Corporation as well as the workman, were appreciated, in detail, and only thereafter, the Industrial Tribunal came to a conclusion that charges are not found to be proved against the workman. He submitted that both the charges are relating to question of fact and a finding of fact has been recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, which should not be interfered with by this Court. He submitted that the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in not interfering with the fact finding recorded by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the Tribunal as well as the Single Bench. He, therefore, submitted that there is no scope to interfere in these intra-Court appeals and the same be dismissed. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court and also the Single Bench. 11. The gist of charges has been reproduced in the termination order dated 29.04.1997 and also in the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 21.08.2004. We have examined the order dated 21.08.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, in detail, and have also gone through the reasons recorded by the Industrial Tribunal for recording a finding that both the charges are not proved against the workman. The learned Tribunal has recorded the reasons that the concerned way bill was not produced by the Corporation. FIR was also not produced by the Corporation to prove the charge against the workman. The best evidence to prove the charges, was available with the appellant-Corporation, but for the reasons best known to the Corporation, the same were not produced before the Industrial Tribunal. Learned counsel for appellants is unable to point out any perversity in the finding of the learned Industrial Tribunal. 12. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for appellants was asked, again and again, to point out any perversity in the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 21.08.2004, but he was unable to point out any perversity in the same, so as to interfere with the same. 13. 12. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for appellants was asked, again and again, to point out any perversity in the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 21.08.2004, but he was unable to point out any perversity in the same, so as to interfere with the same. 13. We have examined both the charges. Both the charges are relating to a question of fact. The learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence, in detail, and thereafter has recorded a finding that both the charges are not proved against the workman and consequently, declined to approve the termination order of the workman and rejected the application of the appellant-Corporation filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. In our view, the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in not interfering with the finding/order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. 14. So far as another special appeal is concerned, the same is relating to application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has computed the amount, payable to workman as per the evidence led by both the parties. The statement of computation of salary was filed by the Corporation, which was accepted by the representative of the workman. It appears from the order dated 27.10.2006, passed by the Labour Court that there was no dispute between the parties so far as computation of the amount of arrear is concerned. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for appellants is unable to point out any factual error in the same. 15. Since we have already held that there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 21.08.2004, therefore, the order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the Labour Court has to be upheld. 16. In view of above reasons and discussion, we do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for appellants in both the cases. Both the special appeals, being devoid of any merit, are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. 17. Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record in connected file. *******