Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 927 (RAJ)

Sugad Singh v. Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur

2019-03-27

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 7th August, 2013, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the application filed by the employer-RSRTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against the petitioner has been allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner received a charge-sheet dated 21st June, 2000, wherein it was alleged that on an inspection being carried out, the inspecting team found that there were 8 passengers, which were without ticket and petitioner despite having received the amount of tickets, did not issue the tickets. 3. The petitioner is said to have filed reply to the charge-sheet denying all the allegations. The employer-corporation appointed the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and the evidence adduced were taken into account by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has levelled allegation that during course of enquiry, the statement of two witnesses-Shri Ramesh Tiwari and Dinesh Mudgal were recorded and in the cross-examination they had admitted that cash of the petitioner was not checked to verify the fact, as to amount was paid by the passengers or not. The petitioner has levelled allegation that the Enquiry Officer had in fact committed illegality, while calling these witnesses as they were forged one and manipulated as evident from the cross examination carried out by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that the Enquiry Officer has recorded a perverse finding, not proved by any legal evidence and a vague report was submitted in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Counsel submitted that during personal hearing before the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner had pleaded his innocence and specifically denied that charges were not proved against him and yet the Disciplinary Authority without paying any heed to the submissions of the petitioners passed his decision relying on the enquiry Report and order of dismissal dt 23rd August, 2002 was passed. 6. The petitioner has pleaded that the past conduct of the petitioner was considered while passing the punishment order of dismissal without giving any opportunity of hearing and as such the dismissal order is violative of principles of natural justice 7. 6. The petitioner has pleaded that the past conduct of the petitioner was considered while passing the punishment order of dismissal without giving any opportunity of hearing and as such the dismissal order is violative of principles of natural justice 7. Petitioner has further pleaded that since general reference was pending before the Industrial Tribunal and the petitioner was a connected workman with the reference, thus, the Corporation employer moved an application before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of the dismissal. The petitioner has pleaded that he has submitted reply to the said approval application and the petitioner specifically pleaded that no complete one month pay was given to the petitioner which was in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. Counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry did not take into account the reply filed to the charge-sheet and the enquiry itself was conducted in an illegal manner. Petitioner has pleaded that none of the passengers, who were traveling allegedly without ticket were produced in the enquiry and the B.C.R. was not prepared by the inspection team and cash of the petitioner was not checked and verified. Petitioner has pleaded that after hearing arguments on the fairness of the enquiry, it was held by the Tribunal that enquiry was fair and proper and such order was passed on 10th January, 2012. 9. Petitioner has pleaded that during final arguments several legal issues were raised by the petitioner and further finding of the Enquiry Officer was also stated to be perverse and based on no legal evidence holding the petitioner guilty. The Labour Court by the impugned order dated 7th August, 2013, has accepted the application of the employer and upheld the dismissal order dated 23rd August, 2002. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Ankul Gupta submitted that the impugned order is an arbitrary order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur without considering the important aspects of the matter, inasmuch as the impugned order of dismissal made a reference of perverse punishments imposed on the petitioner and the same was not part of the charge-sheet. 11. Counsel argued that the charges which were leveled in the impugned charge-sheet dated 23rd August, 2002, has only made a mention about 8 passengers being allowed to travel without tickets. 11. Counsel argued that the charges which were leveled in the impugned charge-sheet dated 23rd August, 2002, has only made a mention about 8 passengers being allowed to travel without tickets. Counsel submitted that the previous conduct of the petitioner even if there were previous punishments imposed, could not be made the basis for passing the dismissal order. 12. Counsel further argued that the scope of deciding the application filed by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not to the extent of considering the other service record which was never the subject matter of record, as no hearing was afforded to the petitioner to meet out such allegation. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 13. This Court finds that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal had already declared the domestic enquiry to be fair and after reaching to such conclusion about fairness of enquiry, the Tribunal was to consider as whether the compliance of Section 33(2)(b) has been made or not. The Industrial Tribunal has recorded a finding that considering the limited scope of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, the Tribunal was primarily to consider as whether the charges leveled against the employee were proved or not. The Industrial Tribunal has recorded a finding that the Enquiry Officer has passed his finding on the basis of evidence recorded and as such the said findings cannot be termed as perverse. 14. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the past conduct ought not to have been taken into account while passing the impugned order. This Court finds that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has considered the charges, which were leveled against the petitioner dated 21st June, 2000 and after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and after due compliance of natural justice, it agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 15. This Court further finds that there were as many as 50 incidents/charge-sheets issued to the petitioner in his service career and the punishments which were imposed on the petitioner in his tenure started from 1990 till 2002. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the service record of the employee and considering the overall facts & circumstances, provided adequate opportunity to the petitioner and found that the dismissal from service was an appropriate punishment. 16. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the service record of the employee and considering the overall facts & circumstances, provided adequate opportunity to the petitioner and found that the dismissal from service was an appropriate punishment. 16. This Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority has not committed any illegality in considering the entire service record of the petitioner and it does not lay in the mouth of the petitioner the contents that if previous punishments have been imposed, the Disciplinary Authority cannot shut its eyes to such punishments. 17. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court also did not look into the relevant arguments of the employee that charges leveled against the petitioner were not proved as the passengers were not produced as witnesses and further cash available with the petitioner was not verified by the inspecting team, this Court finds that the Labour Court in para 9 of its order has referred to the decisions passed by the Apex Court as well as by the High Court, wherein it has been held that non examination of a passenger in the Departmental Enquiry will not be fatal to draw a presumption that the charge is not proved to carry passengers without ticket. 18. The Labour Court has categorically recorded a finding that the inspecting team did not have any predetermination or any eye keeping on the conduct of the petitioner and as such the plea of the petitioner was turned down by the Labour Court. This Court finds that there is no scope of interference in the present matter and accordingly, the same is dismissed.