Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Division Managar Rajasthan State Road ... vs General Secretary on 19 January, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 682/2019
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24149/2018
Division Managar Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,
Jothwara Road, Jaipur
----Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Versus
General Secretary, Transport Workers Union, 1294, Baba Harish
Chandra Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondent/Writ Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tamoliya (through VC) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR Order 19/01/2022 The short ground on which this appeal has been pressed into service, assailing the order passed by learned single Judge is that earlier, the order which was passed by this Court on 24.03.2009 has not been complied with and there is no enquiry made on the aspect as discussed in para 5 of that order.
Para 5 of the order dated 24.03.2009 reads as under:-
"5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the Labour Court allowed the Management to hold disciplinary enquiry against respondent-workman and allowed both the parties to adduce evidence. Evidence was actually adduced singularly on the aspect of double jeopardy in the context of circular issued by Management on 24.7.1982. In fact, the Labour Court in the concluding part of award has (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:15:44 AM) (2 of 3) [SAW-682/2019] observed in no certain terms that in view of penalty which was already been imposed onthe respondent-workman, the Management could not again hold disciplinary proceedings against him. There was no evidence led before the Labour Court by either of the parties that cases in which circular dated 24.7.1982 was invoked, no separate disciplinary action was taken against the conductors found carrying passengers without ticket and that the Management by its conduct was condoning misconduct of all the conductors of that time by just charging the amount of penalty. In fact, when the reference was made at the instance of workman, it was required of him to have laid factual foundation even the aspect of double jeopardy. Although, at the same time, it is also true that Management in the present case has also utterly failed to specifically prove before the Labour Court that it used to take disciplinary action against the conductors even when penalty was realized from them for their misconduct of carrying passengers without ticket. The judgment on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the respondent-workman is distinguishable because in that judgment, the workman was reinstated and there was a categorical finding by Labour Court that no previous misconduct was proved and that respondent found issuing tickets to passengers and that after his reinstatement also he had served Management for four years and no adversity was found against him. It was on those fact that this Court while referring to the policy circulars issued by Management for charging fine and awarding penalty of stopping one grade increment without cumulative effect as a major penalty. In those facts, this Court did not deem it appropriate to interfere with the award, but that judgment turned out on its own facts on the basis of various policy circulars issued by Management where they decided to award penalty as fine and stoppage of one grade increment as a punishment in lieu of disciplinary action. From the language of the circular dated 24.7.1982 no such interpretation is forthcoming."
The case was remanded to the Labour Court to examine whether there were instances in cases of passengers found travelling without ticket, ending up with only penalty and no further action to terminate the services. After remand, the Labour Court has again examined the matter but after going through the order of the Labour Court, we find that the Labour Court has not applied its mind to the aspect on which it was required as per the (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:15:44 AM) (3 of 3) [SAW-682/2019] directions/observations made by this Court in para 5 of order dated 24.03.2009. There is no discussion of any evidence regarding practice of imposing penalty even when passengers were found without ticket followed by no further action of termination.
In that view of the matter, the order passed by the court below as well as award dated 09.03.2017 passed by the Labour Court is set aside. The case is again remanded to the Labour Court. The Labour Court should be careful and cautious in complying with the directions of this Court. The Labour Court would be necessarily required to scrutinize pleadings and evidence on record to find out whether there have been cases other than the case of the respondent-workman where even though passengers were found without ticket, only penalty was imposed as per the provisions and policies of the circular and no termination followed.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J CHARU/31 (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:15:44 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)