[2026:RJ-JP:1132]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2014/2018 Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, We Depot, Alwar Rajasthan Through Its Officer Incharge.

----Petitioner Versus Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Resident Of Village Bhusawar, Tehsil Weir, District Alwar, Presently Residing In Kumher Gate, Opposite Picture Palace, Mali Mohalla, Bharatpur Rajasthan ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19222/2017 Jagdish Prasad, Son Of Sohan Lal, aged about 53 years, Resident Of Village Bhusawar, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur At Present Resident Of Kumher Gate, Behind Picture Palace, Mali Mohalla, Bharatpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Alwar, V-Depot, Alwar.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur in SBCWP No.

2014/2018 Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj in SBCWP No.19222/2017 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj in SBCWP No. 2014/2018 Mr. Nitin Sinsinwar in SBCWP No.19222/2017 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

08/01/2026

1. Arising out of award dated 28.08.2017 in LCR No. 663/2006 (Old No. 25/1999), passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Alwar, in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 1947’), these writ petitions were filed firstly by the RSRTC and other by the workman Jagdish Prasad.

2. By this order, we are disposing of both the writ petitions.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the workman was appointed on the post of conductor on daily wage basis vide order dated 28.05.1985 and after completion of 180 days, he was appointed on probation for a period of one year vide order dated 31.03.1986. When the work of workman Jagdish Prasad was not found satisfactory, his probation period was extended for a period of six months and one penalty was imposed vide order dated 18.06.1986. After inspection on 17.08.1986, it was found that fourteen and half passengers were traveling without tickets, when the workman Jagdish Prasad was discharging his duty as Conductor then his services were terminated on 20.08.1986 and the workman has invoked provision of the Act of 1947 and a reference was made on 03.12.1998 by the Labour Department.

4. After filing of the statement of claim by workman and reply by the employer (RSRTC), statements of AW1 Jagdish Prasad (workman) and NAW1 Sharifan Meena (employer) were recorded. The workman has exhibited three documents whereas employer has exhibited eight documents. Vide order dated 28.08.2017, the Tribunal has found that the termination order dated 20.08.1986 was illegal and contrary to provisions of law, but instead of reinstatement, the Tribunal has directed and awarded compensation of ₹1,00,000/- to the workman.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of RSRTC (employer) has submitted that the workman was on probation and his services can be terminated if his performance in probation is not as satisfactory. She further submits that the termination order was simplicitor and not a stigmatic order and it does not warrant an enquiry. She also submits that the Industrial Tribunal has awarded compensation in exorbitant manner and same is contrary to settled norms. She further submits that the workman has raised the dispute after eleven years and the Tribunal has not considered this fact but the workman has filed a writ petition for reinstatement which is not maintainable as the workman has rendered less than two years’ of service in all manner.

6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of workman and he submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and he has completed 240 days. He also submits that the services of the workman were terminated only on ground that the workman has committed a misconduct. He further submits that a civil suit is filed by the workman, and delay is explained by him before the T