Vidyadhar Nagar Depot, Chomu Road, Jaipur. vs Baba Harish Chandra Marg, Jaipur.

: Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran Advocate. For Respondents : None present. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment Date of Reserve Date of Pronouncement : : 08/08/2025 18/08/2025

1. The petitioner, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Corporation’) has assailed the legality and validity of award dated 29.09.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, penalty order dated

01.07.1987 penalising the workman Kailash Chand son of Thanwar Ram with penalty of withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect and forfeiture of benefits arisen during suspension period, has been quashed and set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, pursuant to charge sheet dated 06.11.1994 and enquiry conducted in continuation thereof, vide order dated 08.04.1997, [2025:RJ-JP:31462] (2 of 5) [CW-2027/2004] the workman was dismissed from service. Feeling aggrieved, the workman filed appeal against the penalty order. The Appellate Authority modified the penalty order and instead of dismissal, penalty of withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect as well as forfeiture of remaining benefits of suspension period was imposed upon the workman.

3. The workman through Respondent No. 1, Rajasthan Transport Workers Union raised industrial dispute, which was ultimately referred to the Tribunal for adjudication.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although penalty order was passed in the year 1987, yet the dispute was raised in the year 2000. Therefore, only on account of such long and unjustified delay, the Tribunal ought to have answered the reference against the workman. However, instead thereof, ignoring the delay, case of the workman was examined on merits by the Tribunal. It was also submitted that both the enquiry proceedings were held to be fair and proper, yet the Tribunal has committed serious error of law and jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment. As such, award dated 29.09.2003 passed by the Tribunal is based upon totally perverse findings and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Despite service, no one had put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

6. Bare perusal of award dated 29.09.2003 would reveal that the only reason for interference highlighted by the Tribunal in the award is that penalty of withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect as well as forfeiture of [2025:RJ-JP:31462] (3 of 5) [CW-2027/2004] remaining benefits of suspension period are beyond the prescribed penalties under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Order, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Standing Orders of 1965’).

7. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the decision delivered by this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others Vs. Inder Singh & Another, 1998 SCC OnLine Raj 207, wherein the identical question with regard to tenability of the penalty of withholding of annual grade increments with cumulative effect was decided at the touch stone of the Standing Orders of 1965. This Court held in the following manner: “6. I am of the view that as a matter of fact, the expressions used under Clause (ii) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965 are pari materia to sub-rule (ii) of Rule 14 read with Rule 17(aa) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the Rules of 1958’), wherein, under sub-rule (ii) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958, the expression “withholding of increments or promotion” is used which is treated to be a minor punishment whereas under Rule 17(aa) of the said Rules, punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect for any period is declared to be major punishment.

7. In the present case, I have no hesitation in holding that the provisions postulated under sub-rule (ii) of Rule 14 read with Rule 17(aa) of the Rules of 1958 making distinction between withholding of increments with cumulative effect and withholding of increments without cumulative effect can be safely used as key to open the lock of ambiguity of Clause (ii) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965. Accordingly, it is held that withholding of increments with cumulative effect and withholding of increments without cumulative effect is not the same thing. Thus, the Industrial Tribunal has committed no error in interpreting Clause (ii) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965 holding that it does not include within its fold withholding of increments with cumulative effect is correct and it is hereby affirmed.

8. Now law must be taken to be well settled that if there is ambiguity relating to a statutory provision having two conflicting interpretations and also leading to punitive consequences to the citizens then the interpretation in favour of citizens to be preferred. On this count also, the Industrial Tribunal has committed no error in interpreting Clause (ii) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965 in favour of respondent No. 1. [2025:RJ-JP:31462] (4 of 5) [CW-2027/2004]

9. Alternatively, it is taken as a ground in the writ petition that even if punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect is not contemplated under Clause (ii) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965 the respondent can be punished with two annual grade increments with cumulative effect under Clause (vi) of Order 36 of the said Standing Orders. Suffice it to say in this regard that although this point was taken before the Industrial Tribunal but was not rightly pressed, hence, there is no discussion on this point in the impugned Award. In abundant caution, it is held that field occupied by clause (ii) and clause (vi) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965 is not same. Both the clauses occupied different fields, therefore this point was not rightly pressed before the Industrial Tribunal. There can be no presumption that clause (vi) of Order 36 of the Standing Orders, 1965 are superfluous and occupy the same field which is occupied by clause (ii) of Order 36 of the said Standing Orders.”

8. Thus, when the issue as to whether the penalty of withholding of annual grade increments with cumulative effect can be imposed under the Standing Orders of 1965 has already been put to rest in the aforesaid decision, I do not find any justification behind imposing such penalty by the petitioner-Corporation.

9. As regards delay in raising reference, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Bansal Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4659/2019 decided on

30.09.2024), wherein this Court has held that the policy of industrial adjudication is that stale claims should not be encouraged or allowed.

10. However, in the instant case, where the penalty imposed upon the workman is ultra vires the Standing Orders of 1965 and such question goes to the root of the matter, competence of the disciplinary authority to impose a particular penalty, learned Tribunal has committed no mistake in quashing [2025:RJ-JP:31462] (5 of 5) [CW-2027/2004] such illegal order vide impugned award dated 29.09.2003. The Tribunal is also justified in moulding the relief on account of alleged delay and it reflects from award dated 29.09.2003 that monetary benefits have been allowed to workman from the date of raising industrial dispute and not prior to that.

11. In the light of foregoing discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned award. Hence, writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. MANOJ NARWANI / (ANAND SHARMA),J