Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs Bagdu Ram and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—In pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by a co-ordinate Bench, this matter came up for its adjudication in the spirit of Lok Adalat. This petition for writ is preferred to challenge the award dated 07.01.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate government under a notification dated 04.08.1998 in the terms that "Whether the termination of workman Mr. Bagdu Ram S/o Mr. Chaina Ram (represented by Mal Singh/Babu Lal, Members, Roadways Employees Union, Jodhpur) by his employer the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jodhpur under an order dated 02.07.1980 is just and valid? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled?"

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that workman Bagdu Ram entered in service being appointed as Conductor on regular basis under an order dated 29.12.1979. He was subjected to disciplinary action under a charge-sheet dated 19.04.1980 for carrying 14 ticketless travelers in bus, where he was discharging the duties of Conductor. A case was also registered against him u/s 8 of the Rajasthan Road Transport (Prevention of Ticketless Travellers) Act. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry exonerated the workman from the charges levelled, however, the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the same passed the order dated 02.07.1980 imposing the penalty of removal from service. An appeal preferred by the workman also came to be rejected on 03.03.1982. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority and its affirmance by the appellate authority, the workman preferred a petition for writ before this court, which was admitted for hearing. However, the same came to be rejected on 10.10.1995 on the count of availability of alternative remedy. The workman was relegated to avail the remedy u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ''the Act of 1947''). The workman, thus, raised an industrial dispute before the competent conciliation officer and ultimately a reference of the dispute was made by the appropriate government on 04.08.1998.

Learned Labour Court after examining the entire material available on record arrived at the conclusion that if the disciplinary authority was in disagreement with the enquiry officer, then he should have given reasons for such disagreement and an opportunity of hearing too should have been given to the workman in this regard. As per the Labour Court, non-availability of the reasons for discrimination and also non-grant of opportunity of hearing to the workman makes his removal bad.

Suffice to mention here that the workman was acquitted from the criminal charge relating to the commission of offence punishable u/s 8 of the Rajasthan Road Transport (Prevention of Ticketless Travellers) Act.

The Labour Court after declaring the removal of the workman illegal directed the employer for his reinstatement in service with all continuity and also to make payment of 40% of the back-wages accrued from the date of reference, i.e. 04.08.1998. Being aggrieved by the award impugned, this petition for writ is preferred.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court had no authority to interfere with the order imposing penalty. It is stated that the entire enquiry was conducted by affording necessary opportunity to the workman to defend himself. He availed the same also and as such, the enquiry did not suffer from any lacuna warranting interference by the Labour Court.

Per contra, as per learned counsel for the respondent-workman, admittedly the workman was not found guilty of any misconduct by the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding so given and imposed a severe penalty of removal from service. It is asserted that the enquiry report being material in favour of the workman, the disciplinary authority, if was having disagreement with that, should have conveyed the reasons for disagreement with the findings given thereon. According to learned counsel, the disciplinary authority at least should have given reasons in the order imposing penalty of removal for his disagreement with the enquiry officer, but those too are conspicuously absent in the order concerned.

Irrespective of the legal position addressed, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-workman that the workman is ready to forego the back-wages awarded including the interest thereon, if the employer reinstates him in service with all continuity. This matter is today before this court for its disposal in the spirit of Lok Adalat. In view of it and also looking to the factual and legal position noticed above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ by modifying the award impugned in the terms that the removal of the workman under the order dated 02.07.1980 is illegal. The workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with all continuity and consequential benefits, except the back-wages. The reinstatement of workman is required to be made by the employer on or before 01.02.2014. The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.