Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rsrtc & Anr vs Hanuman Ram & Ors on 2 August, 2017
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas, Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 515 / 2017
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC),
Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation,
Hanumangarh.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Hanuman Ram S/o Ram Narayan Bishnoi, Resident of
Satjanda, Tehsil- Raisingh Nagar, District- Suratgarh.
2. Judge Labour Court, Sriganganagar
3. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Labour, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Judgment 02/08/2017 The instant special appeal has been filed by the appellant- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 134 of Rajasthan High Court Rules, against the order dated 27.01.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in (2 of 4) [SAW-515/2017] SBCWP No.4297/2003, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant- Corporation was dismissed and the award passed by learned Judge, Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar, was upheld, and the learned Single Judge passed an order to reinstatement of respondent/workman with continuity of service but denied him the back wages on the ground that stay order was operating in writ petition from last fourteen years.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant- Corporation submits that finding for quashing the order of termination by learned Judge, Labour Court was erroneous, therefore, in the writ petition filed by the appellant Corporation before learned Single Judge, the following judgments were brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge:
1. Regional Manager, RSRTC Vs. Ghanshyam reported in (2002) 10 SCC 330
2. Uttaranchal Transport Vs. Sanjay Kumar reported in (2008) 12 SCC 131
3. Divisional Manager, RSRTC Vs. Kamruddin reported in (2009) 7 SCC 552.
4. RSRTC Vs. Bajranglal reported in (2014) 4 SCC 693.
5. U.P. State Road T.C. Vs. Gopal Shukla reported in 2015 (8) JT 527.
It is argued that in the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if misconduct is proved then order for reinstatement in the service cannot be passed. It is thus argued that award as well as judgment impugned passed by the learned Single Judge may kindly be quashed and set aside because the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court with regard to (3 of 4) [SAW-515/2017] alleged misconduct is not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that misconduct committed by the respondent/workman for carrying 43 passengers without ticket in Corporation's bus, was proved but the learned labour court without discussing the entire evidence gave wrong finding so as to pass an order for reinstatement and to quash the order of termination. The respondent/workman was held guilty for committing misconduct but the labour court committed a grave error to quash the order of termination.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/workman submitted that there is no error in the award impugned, so also, in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge under appeal because entire evidence was properly discussed by the learned labour court while holding the termination order to be illegal and question of facts cannot be interfered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the award impugned, so also, judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Upon perusal of award passed by learned Judge, Labour Court, it is obvious that whatever evidence was produced before the learned Judge, Labour Court by both the parties were considered and discussed by the trial court and finally finding was given that misconduct has not been proved, therefore, termination order was set aside. In our opinion, finding of fact based upon evidence led by the parties cannot be interfered with in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhana (4 of 4) [SAW-515/2017] Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524, which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge.
The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation, does not speak whether under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India the finding of fact recorded by the court below can be interfered, therefore, all the judgments which are cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, are not applicable in this case.
Accordingly, and in view of above, there is no force in this intra-court appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (MANOJ KUMAR GARG)J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS)J. DJ/-
3