D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.2591/2011

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp.

Vs.

Shri Zalam Singh Through LRs & Ors.

28.2.2012

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I

Workman died during pendency of the case before

the labour court. Thereafter, the employer was not

given permission to prove charges against the workman

as he was no more alive. This question has been

decided by this Court in Smt.Prem Kumari & Ors. Vs.

Central Industrial Tribunal & Ors., 1995(70) FLR 244

which has been relied upon by the Single Bench.

Following decision has been rendered by this Court:-

“It had already been held earlier by the

Tribunal that the equiry held by the

employer was unfair, the appellant could

not seek to prove the charges after the

death of the concerned workman. No charge

can be proved on the basis of the

evidence tendered after the death of the

charge-sheeted workman. Argument of Shri

Agrawal is that the charge could be

proved even after the death of the

concerned workman, by tendering evidence

with reference to the contemporaneous

record as the charge was only of not

giving the prescribed standard of work.

We do not agree with this argument for

the simple reason that only the deceased

workman could confront the employer with

the circumstances in which the prescribed

standard of work could not be given and

no effective cross examination on this

aspect of the matter could be done by the

legal representatives, i.e., the widow of

the deceased workman and his sons. Only

the deceased workman could confront the

witnesses of the employer with such

circumstances in which it may not have

been possible for him to give the

prescribed standard of work. Therefore,

to say that the work put in by the

concerned employee workman was on record

and the requisite standard of work had

been prescribed and therefore the charge

could be proved even against a dead

person without causing any prejudice to

him, is wholly misconceived, rather ill-

conceived.”

In view of the decision in Smt.Prem Kumari(supra),

we find the decision of Single Bench to be

appropriate. No case for interference is made out.

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Stay

application is also dismissed.

(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),C.J.

Skant/-

All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been

incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

Shashi Kant Gaur, PA