[2026:RJ-JP:16324]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2723/2020

1. Smt. Saroj Devi Wife Of Late Shri Brij Bhushan Sharma (Ex- Conductor, Kota Depot), Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Brahman, R/o Near Falsa Wala Hanumanji, Plot No.J-2, Janta Colony, Behind P.G. College, Dausa (Raj.).

2. Atul Kumar S/o Late Shri Brij Bhushan Sharma, By Caste Brahman, R/o Near Falsa Wala Hanumanji, Plot No.J-2, Janta Colony, Behind P.G. College, Dausa (Raj.).

3. Anoop Kumar S/o Late Shri Brij Bhushan Sharma, By Caste Brahman, R/o Near Falsa Wala Hanumanji, Plot No.J-2, Janta Colony, Behind P.G. College, Dausa (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus Chief Manager, Kota Depot/ Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Kota (Rajasthan).

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rewarmal Bairwa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

17/04/2026

1. On the request and with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the present writ petition is taken up and heard for final disposal at the admission stage.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the dismissal of the claim filed by the petitioner by way of a complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’).

3. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947, raising the issue of contravention of the requirement under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947 while terminating the petitioner for the alleged misconduct of allowing seven passengers to travel without tickets. The petitioner was terminated on the ground of the proven charge of allowing seven passengers to travel in the bus without tickets. While moving the complaint under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947, the petitioner raised an objection with regard to the non-compliance of Section 33(2) of the Act of 1947 while terminating the petitioner on the proved charge of allowing seven passengers without tickets.

4. The contravention is alleged on the ground that the Industrial Dispute No. I.T.R. 102/2001 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal between the Rajasthan Transport Workers Union and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC). The dispute was relating to the authority of the employer to recover financial punishment after retirement by ordering deduction of such amount from the gratuity of a retired employee. 5. Initially, an objection was raised by the respondents herein with regard to the maintainability of complaint under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947 on the ground that the reference which was pending was not relating to the service conditions of an existing workman and was in respect of a retired workman.

6. The Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the petition was maintainable and proceeded to decide on merits. While dismissing the complaint of the petitioner, the Tribunal went beyond the scope of adjudication of complaint under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was an ample evidence to show that misconduct was proved, which means the Tribunal went on to decide the merits of the termination order instead of confining itself to whether the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1947 apply to the complainant/workman and, if applicable, whether there was any non-compliance with the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of

1947.

6A. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 33 of the Act of 1947, which reads as under:

“[33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.—(1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before [an arbitrator or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall,—

(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the