Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rsrtc & Ors vs Hanuman Ram & Anr on 27 January, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4297 / 2003
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (RSRTC)
PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. CHIEF MANAGER, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, HANUMANGARH.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. HANUMANRAM S/O RAM NARAYAN BISHNOI, RESIDENT OF
SATJANDA, TEHSIL RAISINGH NAGAR, DISTRICT SURATGARH.
2. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT, SRI GANGANAGAR.
3. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek, Adv.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
(CAV)Judgment JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 27/01/2017.
1. The petitioners Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) have challenged the award dated 16.04.2002 passed by the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred as 'the Trial Court') as well as the Notification dated 18.08.1998 whereby the dispute was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Bikaner.
2. The short conspectus of facts needed to be noted for disposal of the writ petition are that the respondent workman was (2 of 7) [CW-4297/2003] employed as conductor in the petitioner-Corporation initially on 10.08.1984. His services were dispensed with on ground of misconduct on 17.07.1986 and it was informed that his services are no more required. The respondent No.1 while discharging the duties was found to have been carrying 43 passengers without ticket. Although he had released the fare from the passengers and on inspection of the vehicle, a remark was put to this effect in the way bill and the bus checking report was prepared, which was duly signed by the respondent-workman and the driver of the bus. A complaint was also filed and the original way bill and the bus checking report were filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (Transport) Bikaner.
3. The Workman conductor raised a dispute on 18.08.1998 regarding his wrongful termination and the conciliation proceedings failed and accordingly the State Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Bikaner vide notification dated 18.08.1998. The statement of claim was submitted by the respondent wherein it was submitted that the respondent had filed suit before the Court of Additional Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur on 19.07.1989 to 17.10.1995 however, in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1995 (SC) 1715 RSRTC Vs. Krishna Kant holding that Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to decide the matter relating to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the respondent withdrew the civil suit and raised the dispute. The period from 19.07.1989 to 17.10.1995 cannot be said to have been delayed on the part of the petitioner.
(3 of 7) [CW-4297/2003]
4. It was stated further in this case that petitioner had worked with the respondents from 10.08.1984 and there has been non- compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). It was also stated that his selection was in regular pay scale and an inquiry was required to be initiated and which was not done. Provisions of Section 25-G & H of the Act of 1947 as well as Rules 77 & 78 of the Standing Orders were not complied with. It was further stated that there was no passenger who was traveling without ticket in the vehicle but the Inspector Sayar Singh raised some illegal demand, which he refused, therefore a wrongful remark had been put by Inspector Sayar Singh on the waybill. The petitioner's bag was also not checked for the purpose of checking. The petitioner filed their reply to the statement of claim and denied assertions made by them. It was also pointed out that upon checking, the respondent was carrying 43 passengers without giving them tickets and he had already obtained the money for tickets which was found in his bag and the same was entered in way bill. In additional plea, it was also mentioned that earlier too, the respondent had been removed from services on having committed misconduct on 08.02.1985 but on his request, he was again reinstated on 17.04.1985. He was again removed on 05.04.1986 and was again reinstated on 17.05.1986 and ultimately his services were dispensed with by an order dated 17.07.1986 and in this manner, he did not work for 240 days in the preceding calender year. Affidavits were submitted before the Court and the (4 of 7) [CW-4297/2003] Labour Court found that no application was moved by the RSRTC for conducting an inquiry either in his reply to the claim petition. A request was made for amending the reply. On making such a prayer, the Labour Court allowed the RSRTC to lead evidence. However, after considering the evidence, which was led by the RSRTC and after examining the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the order of removal from service was not justified and legal and the respondent has been reinstated with 30% back wages.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Labour Court proceeded on presumptions and assumptions. It has been submitted that there were enough documents to hold that the respondent was guilty of committing misconduct. Although, the Labour Court had allowed the petitioner to lead evidence vide order dated 01.04.2000. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court was not competent to review its order and disallowed the RSRTC for making amendment in the pleadings. It is further submitted that the Labour Court has wrongly read the evidence brought before it and has wrongly interpreted the statements recorded before it. Merely because no passenger came forward nor anyone have been named to show that the respondent had taken money and had not issued the ticket to him, it cannot be assumed that the checking report was wrong. It has been submitted that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse and this Court ought to look into evidence which per-se shows that the respondent-workman had committed misconduct. It is further submitted that the dispute was raised after lapse of more than 10 (5 of 7) [CW-4297/2003] years, merely because the respondent had raised the dispute before the Civil Court i.e. before a wrong Forum, therefore, benefit cannot be extended to the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge was of a serious nature and the punishment of removal is proper.
6. The writ petition was admitted, notices were issued and award dated 16.04.2002 was stayed by this Court vide order dated 02.09.2003 and since then the case is pending.
7. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent has pointed out that findings of facts have been given by the Labour Court, which cannot be interfered with by this Court while sitting under jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that appreciation of evidence and substituting of opinion, cannot be made by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Interference to award passed by the Labour Court is limited and within the frame work where there is a jurisdictional error or where illegality is apparent on the face of the record or there is a complete perversity.
8. Having heard both the counsel for the parties and after scanning the record carefully, this Court finds that the Labour Court while passing the award has although observed that RSRTC did not make any request for conducting inquiry at the stage before the Labour Court but inspite of the same, it has also examined the merits of the case as to whether the respondent- workman was guilty of the charges. The Labour Court while exercising its powers discussed the aspect regarding 43 passengers traveling without ticket and reached to a finding that (6 of 7) [CW-4297/2003] on the basis of statement made by Sayar Singh, who was inspector, that the 43 passengers cannot be said to be traveling without ticket. The inspector admitted in his cross examination that he had not checked cash with the conductor and that he had merely noted down the statements of the passengers. Even the way bill on which the remark is alleged to have been made, was not submitted before the Court. It was also found by the Labour Court that the allegation of respondent-workman had signed the checking report was also incorrect. The Labour Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that as there were 86 passengers in the bus and the bus had only travelled 4 kms from the place it started, the petitioner cannot be said to have allowed the passengers to travel without ticket as already 43 of them had been granted ticket and remaining were in the process of receiving the ticket.
9. Therefore, it can be said that there is a complete finding of fact arrived at by the competent Court which cannot be held to be perverse. A finding has been arrived at that the conductor was in process of distributing tickets to passengers and the only mistake which he committed is of allowing to start the vehicle before completing the work of distributing ticket which is different from the charge levelled against him.
10. On the question of backwages also, the Court has given its finding that only 30% back wages have been allowed and reinstatement has been allowed from 18.08.1998. Taking into consideration, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh v.National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(7 of 7) [CW-4297/2003] (2003) 3 SCC 524. Para 7 of the judgment in the case of Sadhana Lodh (Supra) is as under:-
"7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision."
11. This Court finds that no interference is called for by this Court in the award passed by the Labour Court. However, in view that the Court had stayed the effect and operation of the award way back in the Year 2003 and almost 14 years have lapsed, the relief granted by the Labour Court requires to be moulded.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with a direction that respondent-workman be allowed to be reinstated in service with continuity of service. However, no back wages be paid to him. His pay and allowances shall be only notionally fixed from the date of his termination till the date of passing of this order. Compliance of the order may now be made within a period of three months.
13. Ordered accordingly.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J. mamta