[2025:RJ-JP:31367]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16796/2011 Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jalore.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Kalu Lal Bheel S/o Shri Bhagwan Lal Deceased, Through His Wife Smt. Bhagwati Devi And Ors, Sector No. 5, Kacchi Basti, Gandhi Nagar, Chittorgarh.

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

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Meel For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Rajkumawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

12/08/2025

1. The petitioner- Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jalore (RSRTC), has challenged order dated 25.01.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned Tribunal') whereby, application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the petitioner for seeking approval of penalty order dated 30.11.2000 has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide charge-sheet dated 13.05.1999, allegations of willful absence from 05.04.1999 were levelled against the respondent- Workman. Thereafter, after following the due procedure of inquiry, report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Complete opportunity of hearing and defence was granted to the workman and vide order dated 30.11.2000, penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the workman.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the learned Tribunal has transgressed its jurisdiction and has acted as an Appellate Authority against the order of Disciplinary Authority. While examining the penalty order and the inquiry proceedings, the learned Tribunal cannot re-appraise the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer, however, vide impugned order dated 25.01.2011, the learned Tribunal has virtually supplanted the findings of Inquiry Officer which has caused grave prejudice of miscarriage of justice to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the workman has expired on 15.01.2001 much before decision the order dated 25.01.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal and his legal heir defended the proceedings before the learned Tribunal. It has been submitted that since there were serious procedural flaws and defects, resulting in denial of opportunity of hearing, therefore, no infirmity or illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in denying the approval in respect of illegal and unjustified penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

6. Although, it is settled proposition of law that in exercise of power under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Tribunal does not work as an Appellate Authority, yet, in order to examine the validity and legality of the inquiry proceedings, the learned Tribunal has got jurisdiction to examine the points with regard to compliance of procedure for conducting inquiry as well as the issue with regard to principles of natural justice.

7. Bare perusal of order passed by the learned Tribunal would reveal that in quite meticulous manner, findings have been given by the learned Tribunal regarding serious procedural flaws in inquiry in as much as, that even complainant was not produced to depose before the Inquiry Officer and the Officer who was present for examination was not aware of the facts. Although, allegations with regard to willful absence were levelled against the workman yet even the copy of attendance register or report of Time Keeper was not produced. No document whatsoever has been produced to prove the allegations of alleged financial loss, if any, caused to the respondent-Corporation. In order to support the allegation of drink and drive even copy of medical report was not produced nor was there any eye-witness before the Inquiry Officer to support suc