[2026:RJ-JP:2169]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10281/2011 Dy. General Manager (Admn.) & Authorized Disciplinary Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Banwari Lal Sharma S/o Shri Jagannath by post Conductor, R/o Village & Post Kalawas, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.

2. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendar Meel For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

19/01/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, against order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947') has been dismissed and consequently approval has not been granted in respect of penalty of dismissal of respondent-workman.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation submits that on account committing grave misconduct, one charge-sheet dated 27.03.1991 was issued to the respondent-workman. After issuance of charge-sheet, enquiry was conducted in accordance with Rules and after analysis of record, Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty and, thereafter, Disciplinary Authority passed order of penalty for dismissing the respondent-workman from services vide order dated 21.12.2000.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation further submits that after making necessary compliance of Section 33(2)

(b) of the Act of 1947 i.e. after making due payment and serving the order upon the respondent-workman, an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 was filed by the petitioner- Corporation before the Industrial Tribunal for seeking approval of the dismissal order dated 21.12.2000.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation also submits that learned Tribunal at the preliminary stage heard both the counsels on the question of fairness of the enquiry, however, the enquiry conducted by the petitioner-Corporation was not found proper and fair. Hence, opportunity was given to the petitioner- Corporation to prove the charges before the learned Tribunal by producing their evidence. He further submits that by misappreciation of evidence and giving perverse finding, it has been held that the petitioner-Corporation could not prove the charges against the petitioner-Corporation and, therefore, approval was not granted and the application under Section 33(2) (b) of the Act of 1947 was dismissed vide order dated 28.12.2010. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation further submits that while passing order dated 28.12.2010, learned Tribunal has committed serious error of law and jurisdiction and has examined the evidence in the capacity of Appellate Authority, whereas no such scope of interference is there with learned Tribunal. He also submits that fall out of order dated 28.12.2010 would be that a person who has committed serious misconduct of carrying passengers without ticket shall have to be reinstated by the petitioner-Corporation, which would be perpetuating an illegality to give benefits to a person who is not otherwise entitled.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman opposes the writ petition and defended order dated 28.12.2010. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has meticulously examined the evidence led by the petitioner-Corporation for which it has got jurisdiction as the enquiry earlier carried out by the petitioner- Corporation has been held to be unfair by the learned Tribunal and such order of unfairness was not challenged by the petitioner-

Corporation.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman also submits that thus under the circumstances, where opportunity was granted to the petitioner-Corporation to prove charges before the learned Tribunal by producing evidence, scope of appreciation available with the learned Tribunal is q