Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Ganesh Saini - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12688/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Stay Application No. 12102/2021
Decided On : 09-11-2021
[INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES] - [SECTION 33(2)(b) APPLICATION] - [The court addressed the legality of the Industrial Tribunal's order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, emphasizing the need for sufficient documentary evidence to prove willful absence. The court found that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the findings of a fair and reasonable inquiry.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Industrial Tribunal's order dated 03.09.2021, which dismissed their application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming the respondent-employee's absence was willful. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred by requiring documentary evidence to prove willfulness, despite the respondent admitting to absences due to sickness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's arguments, noting that the Tribunal's requirement for documentary evidence was excessive given the respondent's admission of absence. The court deemed the inquiry fair and reasonable, indicating that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in dismissing the application for lack of documentary evidence to prove willful absence, and whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of the inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal's dismissal based on insufficient documentary evidence was inappropriate, especially when the respondent admitted to absences. The court emphasized the importance of not undermining a fair inquiry's findings without substantial grounds.
Result: The court stayed the operation of the Industrial Tribunal's order dated 03.09.2021, pending further orders.
JUDGMENT
Assailing the legality of the order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, learned counsel submitted that learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the application on the premise that the petitioner has failed to prove charge of willful absence of the respondent-employee by production of documentary evidence whereas, the respondent himself has admitted absence from the duty for various periods on the ground of sickness but, could not prove that the absence was not willful but, was on account of sickness. He submitted that once the Tribunal has found the enquiry to be fair and reasonable, the learned Tribunal exceeded in its jurisdiction in interfering with finding recorded by the authority.
Issue notice. Rule is made returnable by five weeks. Notices be filed in two sets. One set of notices be sent through registered post with acknowledgment due. Steps to be taken within a week.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on interim relief. Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the material on record including the statement of the respondent recorded during course of enquiry, this Court deems it just and proper to stay the operation and effect of the order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur till further orders.
The requirement for documentary evidence to prove willful absence under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act must be balanced against the admissions made by the employee regarding their ab....
Timely substantiation of claims and evidence is crucial in applications for condonation of delay in legal proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata in employment disputes and the relevance of delay in approaching the industrial adjudicator.
The rejection of inquiry applications under the Industrial Disputes Act can be challenged, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions.
The judgment emphasized the discretionary jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the limited scope of interference by the High Court under Article 226 ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
