LexRAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER versus SATYA PRAKASH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 939 RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD lRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER V. SATYA PRAKASH (Civil Appeal No. 4560 of 2008) APRIL 9, 2013 [H.L. GOKHALE AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ] INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947: s. 33-A read with s.33 - Complaint by a daily wager- bus conductor who had been dismissed from service after an inquiry - Industrial Tribunal holding the charge proved, but directing reinstatement of workman without back wages - Held: A B c When respondent had indulged into a misconduct within a 0 very short span of service which had been duly proved, there was no occasion to pass the award of reinstatetnent with continuity in service - Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of High Court have fallen in the same error in upholding the order of Tribunal - The complaint ought to have E been dismissed - Judgments of High Court as also award of Tribunal, except as mentioned in the judgment, are set aside - Consequently the complaint shall stand dismissed. ss. 33 and 33-A - Nature and scope of Explained - Held: Once the Complaint i.J/s 33A is decided, there is no question F of granting any liberty to apply uls 33 of the Act. The respondent, working as a bus conductor on daily wages, was found to have collected fare from passengers but had not. issued tickets to some of them. G A departmental inquiry was conducted against him wherein he did not participate. The charge was found proved and the respondent was dismissed from service. He filed a civil suit. The trial court recorded a finding 939 H 940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 2 S.C.R. A against him but dismissed the suit for want of territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint before the Industrial Tribunal u/s s.33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal also found the charge to have been proved, but held that provisions of B s.33(2)(b) of the Act had not been complied with and directed reinstatement of the respondent, without back wages but with continuity of service. The single Judge of the High Court in writ petition as also the Division Bench in writ appeal declined to interfere. c Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was enacted to make a special provision for adjudication as to whether s.33 has been contravened. D This section enables an employee aggrieved by such contravention to make a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner to the tribunal. Sub-s. (b) of s.33A clearly lays down that when such a complaint is made, the Tribunal shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it E were a dispute referred to it, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and shall submit the award to the appropriate Government, and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. Thus, by this section the aggrieved employee is given a right to move the tribunal F and to prove his case on merits, without having to take recourse to s.10 of the Act. [para 15-16] [952-G; 953-C-D] 1.2 In the instant case, the Tribunal while deciding the complaint has gone into the merits of the case as in a Reference, given full opportunity to the parties, and then G held that the charge against the respondent was proved. H This finding is not disturbed by the High Court. The civil court has also given the same finding which was not challenged by the respondent. Both these proceedings were initiated by the respondent/workman and resulted RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 941 v. SAlYA PRAKASH into a decision against him on merits. The decision of A the civil court was however not placed before the Industrial Tribunal either by the respondent or by the appellant.The respondent worked only for 5 months as a daily wager. The Tribunal accepted that during this very short span of service as a daily wager, the B resp·ondent had committed the misconduct which had been duly proved. Having held so, the Tribunal was expected to dismiss the complaint filed by the respondent. It could not have passed. the order of reinstatement with continuity in service in favour of the c respondent on the basis that initially the appellant had committed a breach of s.33 (2) (b) of the Act. The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have fallen in the same error in upholding the order of the Tribunal. It is made clear that once the complaint uls 33A D is decided, there is no question of granting any libert
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.