Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chief Manager Rsrtc Jaipur vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Anr on 24 August, 2012
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8499/2002 Chief Manager, RSRTC, Jaipur Versus Vishnu Prasad Sharma & Anr. Date of Order :: 24th August, 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Mukesh Kumar Verma, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajendra Arora, for the respondent/s. By the Court:
By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 03.09.2002 whereby approval application moved by the petitioner-corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been dismissed.
It is urged that Tribunal, while hearing application for approval of dismissal order cannot interfere in the quantum of punishment while considering the delinquency of respondent-workman. The approval application, thus wrongly dismissed. It is further stated that looking to default of respondent-employee to properly repair the bus, not only there was a breakdown but the bus could not ply for two rounds, thereby loss was suffered by the Corporation. The evidence was produced before the Enquiry Officer where charge was held proved, accordingly there was no reason to dismiss the approval application.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand supported the order dated 03.09.2002.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record.
It is a case where respondent-workman was dismissed from service after holding enquiry. The charges against the respondent-workman was that he failed to repair bus No.3822 properly. He had repaired gear and clutch rod but soon thereafter, bus went out of order. On account of breakdown, the students could not attend school in time and at the same time, bus could not take two rounds further. The learned Tribunal found that from the evidence of Om Prakash, it came out that bus was standing on rims as all the tyres were not there. In absence of tyres, it was difficult to check the bus after repair by moving it. Ignoring the aforesaid, the charge was held proved and respondent-workman was held guilty for not fixing clutch rod properly. The learned Tribunal looked into the matter and found that as to whether breakdown of the bus was due to mechanical reasons, should have been supported by evidence of a technical person. If after repair, if any difficulty comes, it cannot solely attributed to the mechanic unless his default is proved. Looking to non-existence of prima facie evidence to support the allegations against the respondent-workman, approval application was rejected. The respondent-workman was held guilty only on the ground that clutch rod came out but to prove that it was due to his default, required legal evidence should have been produced.
Looking to the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the order of Tribunal. The respondent-workman has already been reinstated in service in April, 2003 and is working with the petitioner-corporation, thus looking to all these reasons, I am not inclined to interfere in the order dated 03.09.2002.
Accordingly, the writ petition so as the stay application are dismissed.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
Preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A