Chief Manager vs Ramswaroop Bhambhu (2026:Rj-Jd:6661) on 5 February, 2026

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chief Manager vs Ramswaroop Bhambhu (2026:Rj-Jd:6661) on 5 February, 2026

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the propriety, validity, and correctness of the Award dated 24.02.2020 (Annex.1) passed by the Labour Court, whereby the punishment imposed upon the respondent-workman of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was modified to non-cumulative effect, seeking following relief:-

"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate, writ order or direction the impugned order dt. 24.02.2020 Annex. I may kindly be declared illegal and be accordingly quashed and set aside.

Any other relief to which petitioners appears entitle to may kindly be also be passed in favour of the petitioner."

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:55 AM) (Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 08:38:14 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6661] (2 of 11) [CW-6528/2021]

2. The facts giving rise to the dispute are that on 08.08.2014, while the respondent-workman was discharging his duties as a Conductor on the Sri Ganganagar to Raisinghnagar route, the bus was inspected by the inspection team upon its arrival at Chunavadh. During inspection, ten passengers were found travelling without tickets. A red remark was marked by the inspection team, whereafter the respondent-workman allegedly misled the passengers and abused and assaulted the members of the inspection team. A report was submitted to the competent authority, pursuant to which the respondent-workman was placed under suspension vide order dated 10.08.2014. Subsequently, a charge-sheet dated 20.08.2014 was issued, and after due proceedings, the respondent-workman was awarded the punishments of censure, stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, deduction of 2% of salary for a period of 24 months, and forfeiture of the balance salary for the suspension period. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute. As the conciliation proceedings failed, a failure report was sent, and the appropriate Government, vide notification dated 25.01.2018, referred the dispute for adjudication, which ultimately culminated in the passing of the impugned Award.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award dated 24.02.2020 (Annex.1) passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar is ex-facie illegal, perverse, and without jurisdiction to the extent it modifies a lawful departmental punishment without assigning any cogent or (Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:55 AM) (Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 08:38:14 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6661] (3 of 11) [CW-6528/2021] legally sustainable reason. He further submits that the Labour Court itself has recorded a categorical finding that the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper, that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the workman, and further that the charges stood proved, including the serious misconduct of carrying 10 passengers without tickets and misbehaving with the inspection team, having upheld the enquiry and the findings of guilt, the Labour Court could not have interfered with the punishment unless it was shockingly disproportionate, which finding is completely absent in the impugned award.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the worker's proven misconduct seriously breaks discipline and trust because, as a conductor who is handling public money, carrying passengers without tickets would cause financial loss to the corporation, and misbehaving physically with inspection staff makes the offence even more serious. He also submits that in service jurisprudence, the nature of the misconduct involved has consistently been held to warrant even the extreme penalty of dismissal from service; therefore, the disciplinary authority had already exercised considerable leniency by imposing only the punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect, and in these circumstances the Labour Court committed a manifest error of law in characterising such a clearly lenient punishment as excessive.

5. He argues that the Labour Court can substitute the punishment under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only when the punishment is too harsh, and in this case, (Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:55 AM) (Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 08:38:14 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6661] (4 of 11) [CW-6528/2021] the award gives no reasons or explanation showing why the punishment was unjust, therefore, the substitution from cumulative to non-cumulative effect has been done in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, which amounts to substitution of the Labour Court's subjective opinion in place of the employer's discretion, contrary to settled principles of law.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Gopal Shukla & Ors. [(2015) 17 SCC 603.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the impugned Award dated 24.02.2020 passed by the Labour Court is legal, justified, and well within the jurisdiction conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

8. He submits that even after upholding the disciplinary enquiry and the finding of guilt, the Labour Court is statutorily empowered to examine the proportionality of the punishment, and such power is not confined only to cases of shockingly disproportionate punishment but extends to ensuring that the penalty imposed is fair, just, and commensurate with the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

9. He further submits that the Labour Court, while exercising this discretion, has taken a balanced view by maintaining the punishment of stoppage of two grade increments and merely modifying its effect from cumulative to non-cumulative, thereby neither exonerating the workman nor nullifying the disciplinary action. He further submits that the misconduct, (Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:55 AM) (Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 08:38:14 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6661] (5 of 11) [CW-6528/2021] though proved, did not involve permanent loss to the Corporation and that the workman was not dismissed from service, which itself reflects that the employer did not consider the misconduct to be of the gravest nature. The Labour Court's interference, therefore, cannot be termed perverse or without reasons, as it reflects a judicious exercise of statutory power aimed at preventing undue harshness.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13273/2012 (Chief Manager, RSRTC, Chhittorgarh & Anr. vs. Ratan Giri and Anr.) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16888/2018 (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Narendra Kumar).

11. The Court has considered the pleadings on record, the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the judgments relied upon.

12. It is an admitted position that the Labour Court in the impugned award dated 22.02.2020 (Annex.1) upheld the inquiry in its entirety. It recorded categorical findings that the inquiry was fair and proper; that due opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent - Workman; and that the charges leveled against him stood fully proved. The misconduct so proved-viz., carrying 10 passengers without tickets and misbehaving with/assaulting the inspection staff - constitute, by its very nature financial irregularity/breach of trust and serious indiscipline. The charges leveled against the respondent

- Workman vide charge-sheet dated 20.08.2016 and mentioned in the impugned award dated 24.02.2020 are that (Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:55 AM) (Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 08:38:14 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6661] (6 of 11) [CW-6528/2021] during the inspection of the vehicle by the Inspection Team, 10 passengers were found traveling without tickets, petitioner misbehaved with the inspection team and the passengers were instigated.

13. This Court finds that once the findings as to guilt and the fairness of the inquiry stood upheld, the scope of interference with the quantum of punishment under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 become circumscribed. It is well settled that though the Labour Court has the power to interfere with the punishment, such power is not unfettered. It can be exercised only where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct or where the decision making process vitiates on the grounds of procedural impropriety or perversity. In the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, a penalty that was imposed taking into consideration the gravity of the charges leveled upon the petitioner which by no stretch can be termed as harsh or excessive.

14. The Labour Court, however, proceeded to modify the punishment from cumulative effect to non-cumulative effect sans any cogent reasons or a specific finding. The relevant part of the award is reproduced as under:-

11. प्रस्तुत विवाद का अधिनिर्णय इस प्रकार किया जाता है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक श्री रामस्वरूप भांभू पुत्र श्री रामगोपाल परिचालक को अप्रार्थी मुख्य प्रबन्धक राजस्थान राज्य पथ परिवहन निगम अनूपगढ जिला श्री गंगानगर द्वारा जरिये दण्डादेश 6002 दिनांकित 3.12.2015 द्वारा दो वार्षिक वेतन वृद्धियां संचयी (Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:55 AM) (Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 08:38:14 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6661] (7 of 11) [CW-6528/2021] प्रभाव से रोके जाने का दण्ड अत्यधिक होने से इसके स्थान पर दो वार्षिक वेतन वृद्धि असंचयी प्रभाव से रोके जाने हेतु परिवर्तित किया जाता है। जबकि परिनिन्दा का दण्ड, व दो प्रतिशत राशि चौबिस माह तक प्रार्थी को मिलने वाले वेतन से कटौती करने वं निलम्बन काल का शेष वेतन जब्त करने का दण्ड उचित एवं वैध होने से यथावत रखे जाते है।"

The Labour Court has not given any finding that the original punishment shocked its conscience, as the punishment was grossly disproportionate or defied logic/proportionality.

This court finds that such an approach is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari :(2006) 10 SCC 388, wherein it has been categorically held that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it is illogical, suffers from procedural impropriety, or is shocking to the conscience of the Court, and that the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and not the decision itself. The requirement of recording cogent reasons demonstrating how the punishment is shockingly disproportionate has been emphasized as a mandatory safeguard against arbitrary substitution of the employer's discretion. In the absence of such reasoning, the interference by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. The relevant paragraph of the judgment in the case of Dwarka Prasad Tiwari (supra) is reproduced here:-

"12. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury's case (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not (Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:55 AM) (Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 08:38:14 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6661] (8 of 11) [CW-6528/2021] substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. To put differently unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.

The above position was recently reiterated in Union of India and Anr. v. K.G. Soni MANU/SC/8413/2006 : (2006)IIILLJ802SC following Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Ors. v. Munna Lal Jain MANU/SC/1081/2004 : (2005)ILLJ730SC .

13. The High Court, as rightly submitted by learned Counsel for Union of India, has not indicated any reason for coming to the conclusion that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. The High Court only stated that the defence of respondent-Dwarka Prasad was not duly considered. If that was really so, the High Court would have interfered on that ground but that has not been done. The High Court's order therefore reflects non application of mind. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to re-hear the writ petition restricted to the question of quantum of punishment. The appeal filed by respondent-

Dwarka Prasad is without merit in view of the fact that his statement at different stages during the departmental proceedings indicates that he has accepted that he himself was responsible for the incident. In ultimate result the appeal filed by Union of India is allowed to the extent indicated, while the appeal filed by Dwarka Prasad is dismissed."

15. This Court finds that the judgment cited by the respondent-workman i.e. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Narendra Kumar : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16888/2018, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench, does not support his case as in the said matter, the Labour Court had assigned detailed and cogent reasons, taking into account factors such as length of service, surrounding circumstances, and proportionality, and had recorded a conscious finding justifying (Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:55 AM) (Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 08:38:14 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6661] (9 of 11) [CW-6528/2021] interference with cumulative punishment. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court, therefore, declined to interfere, holding that the discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act had been exercised judiciously. The present case is on different footing as the impugned award does not assign reasons showing that it shook the conscience of the Labour Court finding the punishment disproportionate to the proved charges.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Subhash Chandra Sharma & Ors. : (2000) 3 SCC 324, has clearly reiterated that interference by the Labour Court with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is impermissible unless the punishment is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that where a serious charge of misconduct stands established, the discretion exercised by the Labour Court to dilute the punishment, without cogent and justifiable reasons, is arbitrary and unsustainable, and such an erroneous exercise of discretion is liable to be corrected by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:-

"xxx

9. The Labour Court, while upholding the third charge against the respondent nevertheless interfered with the order of the appellant removing the respondent, from the service. The charge against the respondent was that he, in drunken state, along with a conductor went to the Assistant Cashier in the cash room of the appellant and demanded money from the Assistant Cashier. When the Assistant Cashier refused, the respondent abused him and threatened to assault him. It was certainly a serious charge of (Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:55 AM) (Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 08:38:14 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6661] (10 of 11) [CW-6528/2021] misconduct against the respondent. In such circumstances, the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the order of removal of respondent from the service when the charge against him stood proved. Rather we find that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in the circumstances of the present case was capricious and arbitrary and certainly not justified. It could not be said that the punishment awarded to the respondent was in any way "shockingly disproportionate" to the nature of the charge found proved against him. In our opinion, the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and did not correct the erroneous order of the Labour Court which, if allowed to stand, would certainly result in miscarriage of justice. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma and Ors. (15.03.2000 - SC) : MANU/SC/0188/2000.

xxx"

17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Labour Court has clearly exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By mechanically interfering with the employer's bonafide discretion in the matter of punishment, it has reduced the quantum of penalty imposed without assigning any cogent or compelling reasons whatsoever. This unwarranted intervention amounts to nothing short of the fact that the Labour Court has substituted its own subjective views and notions of justice in place of the employer's reasoned decision. This Court finds that the Labour Court failed to examine or satisfy itself with regard to the well- settled parameters of judicial review, which demand a demonstrable application of mind, proportionality of punishment to misconduct, and restraint against re- appreciating evidence already considered by the disciplinary authority. Such a cavalier approach undermines the foundational principles of administrative law and employer autonomy in internal disciplinary matters. Consequently, this patently erroneous order warrants interference by this Court in (Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:55 AM) (Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 08:38:14 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6661] (11 of 11) [CW-6528/2021] exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Award dated 24.02.2020 (Annex.1), to the extent indicated above, is quashed and set aside. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J 176/ Surabhi (Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 11:54:55 AM) (Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 08:38:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur