Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
General Manager R S R T C vs Dwarka Prasad And Anr on 27 August, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No.10378/2008 General Manager, RSRTC versus Dwarka Prasad & anr 27.8.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Ravi Chirania for petitioner Mr GC Swarnkar for respondent-employee BY THE COURT:
By this writ petition, challenge is made to the award of the labour court dated 5.3.2008. The award has been challenged mainly on the ground that the dispute pertaining to punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect could not have been raised by an individual in view of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it can be in case of discharge and dismissal where even individual can raise a dispute. The dispute of the nature herein could have been raised at the instance of union or group of workmen.
It is further submitted that the order of punishment has been interfered only on the ground that co-employee was not punished, rather, exonerated ignoring the fact that the case of the two employees was quite different, rather, enquiry was conducted by different enquiry officers and lastly that respondent- employee was having series of punishments in his credit.
Learned counsel for the respondent employee, on the other hand, supported the impugned award passed by the labour court.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is a case where individual raised a dispute though it is not of the nature falling under section 2-A of the Act of 1947. The issue aforesaid was not raised in the pleadings thus was not permitted by the labour court. I cannot endorse the view of the labour court because it is a legal ground and should have been looked into by the labour court to judge as to whether individual is competent to raise dispute of the nature involved herein.
It is settled law that other than the dispute regarding discharge and dismissal, individual is not competent to raise a dispute, rather, it can be raised by the union or majority of workmen. In the aforesaid background, the finding of the labour court cannot be accepted.
So far as merit of the case is concerned, I find that the order of punishment has been interfered only on the ground that another employee Naval Kishore was exonerated though charge was held proved in the report submitted by Shri KN Gupta. The labour court came to the conclusion that exoneration of co-employee Naval Kishore should have been resulted exoneration of respondent employee also without holding out as to what were the allegations against the two. Whether they were shouldering the same responsibility and other related aspects. The interference in the order of punishment has been made casually thus I am not inclined to uphold it thus impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. The allegation against two employees may be same but taking note of their responsibilities and act in the matter, different treatment can be given.
In view of aforesaid, writ petition is allowed and the impugned award dated 5.3.2008 passed by the labour court is set aside.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW