Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6942 of 2022
Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation … Appellant
Versus
Bharat Singh Jhala (Dead) Son of Shri Nathu
Singh, through Legal Heirs & Anr. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur
passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.645 of 2020 by
which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the
Signature Not Verified
said appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single
Digitally signed by
SNEHA
Date: 2022.09.30
16:26:24 IST
Reason:
Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant
2
confirming the order passed by the Labour Court setting aside
the order of termination passed against the workman, the
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has preferred the
present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are
as under:
2.1 The workman was serving on the post of Conductor. A
departmental enquiry was initiated against him alleging not
issuing the tickets to 10 passengers though he collected the
amount of tickets. In the department inquiry he was found
guilty for the misconduct alleged. The employer – Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation terminated his services vide
Order dated 31.07.2001.
2.2 An application for approval of punishment order under
Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereafter
referred to as “the I.D. Act”) was submitted before the
Industrial Tribunal on 31.07.2001. The Industrial Tribunal
3
held the enquiry bad. However, the Industrial Tribunal vide
Order dated 12.12.2012 allowed the appellant – Corporation to
prove the charges before the Tribunal. Both the parties led the
evidence before the Tribunal on the charges alleged. The
appellants led, both, oral as well as documentary evidences.
That on appreciation of entire evidence on record and
considering the submissions made on behalf of both the
parties, the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 21.07.2015
allowed the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act
and granted the approval of the order of termination. That
thereafter and after a period of approximately 19 years from
the date of passing the order of termination, the workman
again raised the Industrial Dispute challenging the order of
termination of 2001. By Judgment and Award dated
19.11.2019 the Labour Court, Jaipur allowed the said
reference and set aside the order of termination. As in the
meantime the workman died and the dispute was raised after
a period of 19 years, the Labour Court passed an order
awarding 50% back wages from the date of termination till his
4
death i.e. 10.12.2018. The Judgment and Award passed by
the Labour Court was challenged before the learned Single
Judge of the High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition. Against the award passed by the learned
Single Judge dismissing the writ petition the appellant
preferred the appeal before the Division Bench. By impugned
judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the said
appeal which has given rise to the present appeal.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the
Hon’ble High Court has committed a serious error in
dismissing the writ appeal/writ petition confirming the
judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Court.
3.1 It is submitted that once in an application under Section
33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act and pursuant to the earlier order
passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant was permitted
to lead the evidence and prove the charge/misconduct and
thereafter when the order of termination was approved by the
5
Industrial Tribunal, thereafter it was not open for the
workman to again raise the Industrial Dispute that too after a
period of 19 years. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court
has materially erred in confirming the judgment and award
passed by the learned Labour Court quashing and setting
aside the order of termination which as such was approved by
the Industrial Tribunal by order dated 21.07.2015.
3.2 Making above submissions, it is prayed to allow the
present appeal.
4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri H.D.
Thanvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
4.1 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of
John D’Souza vs. Karnataka State Road Transport
(2019) 14 Scale 57, it is vehemently submitted
Corporation,
that as observed and held by this Hon’ble Court the
proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) and Section 10 of the I.D.
6
Act are distinct and different. It is submitted that as observed
and held by this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid decision the
proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act are
summary in nature and findings recorded while deciding the
application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act shall not affect
the substantive right in a reference under Section 10 of the
I.D. Act.
4.2 It is submitted that therefore, the Labour Court did not
commit any error in considering the validity of the order of
termination and thereafter quashing and setting aside the
same and ordering 50% back wages.
4.3 It is submitted that considering the fact that the
workman has died and his heir widow is awarded 50% back
wages only, the same may not be interfered by this Court in
exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India.
7
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties at length.
5.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the workman
was subjected to departmental enquiry and the charge against
the deceased workman was not issuing the tickets to 10
passengers though he collected the fare. On conclusion of the
departmental enquiry his services were terminated. The
termination was the subject matter of the approval application
before the Industrial Tribunal in an application under Section
33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. In the said proceedings the
management was permitted to lead the evidence and prove the
charge/misconduct before the Tribunal. In the said
application the parties led the evidence, both, oral as well as
documentary. Thereafter on appreciation of evidence on
record, the Industrial Tribunal by order dated 21.07.2015
approved the order of termination. That thereafter the
workman raised the Industrial Dispute challenging the order
of termination which as such was proved by the Industrial
8
Tribunal by order dated 21.07.2015. Therefore, once the order
of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal and
the management was permitted to lead the evidence and prove
the misconduct before the Court and thereafter on
appreciation of evidence the order of termination was
approved, thereafter the fresh reference under Section 10 of
the I.D. Act challenging the order of termination was not
permissible. It is required to be noted that the order dated
21.07.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal which as such is
a higher forum than the Labour Court had attained the
finality. Though the aforesaid fact was pointed out before the
High Court, the High Court has not at all considered and/or
appreciated the same and has confirmed the judgment and
award passed by the Labour Court for setting aside the order
of termination which as such was approved by the Industrial
Tribunal.
5.2 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of
this Court in the case of John D’Souza (supra) by the learned
9
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is concerned,
on facts the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of
the case on hand. In the present case by specific order the
Industrial Tribunal permitted the management to lead the
evidence and prove the misconduct before the Court which as
such was permissible. That thereafter the Industrial Tribunal
approved the order of termination. Once the order of
termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal on
appreciation of evidence led before it, thereafter the findings
recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were binding between the
parties. No contrary view could have been taken by the
Labour Court contrary to the findings recorded by the
Industrial Tribunal.
6. In view of the above, the judgment and award passed by
the Labour Court confirmed by the High Court is
unsustainable. The High Court has committed a very serious
error in dismissing the writ petition/writ appeal confirming the
10
judgment and award passed by the Labour Court setting aside
the order of termination.
7. In view of the above and for the reason stated above the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court confirming the judgment and award
passed by the Labour Court setting aside the order of
termination and the judgment and award passed by the
Labour Court setting aside the order of termination are hereby
quashed and set aside.
The Present Appeal is Allowed to the aforesaid extent.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
New Delhi,
(KRISHNA MURARI)
September 30, 2022.