Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 979 (RAJ)

Chief Manager v. Sh. Sohan Singh

2021-06-30

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT 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 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. 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 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.