Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Phalana v. Shri Chunnilal

Judgment

#1. Shri Chunnilal S/o Dhanna Lal, R/o VPO- Bali, Distt- Pali, Rajasthan. (Deceased during Proceedings.) 1/1. Smt Santi Devi W/o Late Chunni Lal. 1/2. Prakash Kumar S/o Late Chunni Lal. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.Om Prakash Sheoran For Respondent(s) : Mr.Manoj Pareek JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/03/2025

#1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made by the petitioner-Corporation to the impugned order dated

23.06.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, “the Tribunal”) by which the domestic enquiry conducted against the respondent-workman was treated as improper and invalid and the order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the Tribunal whereby the application filed by the petitioner-Corporation under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act of 1947”) has been rejected on the ground that after the death of the respondent-workman, no fresh enquiry can be conducted and accordingly, approval to the termination order of the respondent- workman has been denied. [2025:RJ-JP:12427] (2 of 4) [CW-1500/2016]

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation submits that the respondent-workman was working as Conductor and he remained absent from service since 23.03.1995 and in spite of giving serveral notices, he failed to join the duties. Therefore, a decision was taken to conduct domestic enquiry against him for which the notice for penal hearing was sent to him on 01.11.1996 which was received by the workman on 09.12.1996. Counsel submits that the notice was sent by registered post along-with acknowledgment receipt and the acknowledgment receipt bears the signatures of the workman and on 09.12.1996. Counsel submits that in spite of service of the aforesaid notice, the respondent-workman failed to appear and participate in the domestic enquiry, and hence, ex-parte enquiry was conducted and the misconduct of the respondent-workman was found to be proved and accordingly, a decision was taken to terminate his services vide order dated 29.04.1997 and thereafter, an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 was submitted before the Tribunal seeking approval of the termination of the workman.

#3. Counsel submits that the Tribunal vide order dated

23.06.2015 has recorded a wrong finding that the notice sent through registered post notice was not served upon the respondent-workman and on this count, the domestic enquiry, conducted against him was declared as improper and invalid. Counsel submits that once the registered notice was received by the respondent-workman, which is evident from his own signatures on 09.12.1996, there was no reason and occasion [2025:RJ-JP:12427] (3 of 4) [CW-1500/2016] available with the petitioner-Corporation to send other notice. Counsel submits that when the respondent-workman failed to appear in the departmental proceedings, no other option was available with the petitioner-Corporation, except to proceed ex- parte against him and accordingly, the evidence of the witnesses were recorded and the misconduct of the respondent-workman was found to be proved and a decision was taken to terminate his services. Counsel submits that hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

#4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per the record, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner for his appearance on 28.07.1996, but there is no order-sheet of the said date, available on the record and on the next date, i.e., on 06.01.1997, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted against the respondent-workman in his absence, without service of any notice. Counsel submits that this fact was appreciated by the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order dated 23.06.2015, hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, which requires no interference of this Court.

#5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

#6. Perusal of the record indicates that for the misconduct of the respondent-workman, a charge-sheet was issued to him for conducting enquiry and accordingly, a registered notice dated

01.11.1996 was sent to the respondent-workman and the same was received by him which is evident from his own signatures on [2025:RJ-JP:12427] (4 of 4) [CW-1500/2016]

09.12.1996 on the acknowledgement and this fact is available on the record receipt issued by the Department of Indian Post.

#7. This fact is not disputed by the respondent-workman that the acknowledgement receipt bear his signatures and this fact has been overlooked by the Tribunal while passing the order impugned dated 23.06.2015.

#8. Once the workman has received the notice on 09.12.1996 and he has failed to appear before the Disciplinary Authority, the authority concerned was having no other option except to proceed ex-parte against them, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 23.06.2015 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside.

#9. In view of the above, the subsequent order dated

30.06.2015 also stands quashed and set-aside. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

#10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

#10. Consequences to follow. Aayush Sharma /60 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J