RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus BHARAT SINGH JHALA (DEAD) SON OF SHRI NATHU SINGH, THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 30-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
v.
BHARAT SINGH JHALA (DEAD) SON OF SHRI NATHU 
SINGH, THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6942 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – ss.10, 33(2)(b) – Termination
– Departmental Enquiry against workman-conductor (since
deceased) for not issuing the tickets even after collecting the amount
of tickets – Terminated in 2001 – Order of termination approved in
2015 by Industrial Tribunal – After a period of approximately
19 years from the date of passing the order of termination, the
workman again raised the Industrial Dispute, Labour Court set aside
the order of termination and passed order awarding 50% back wages
from the date of termination till his death in 2018 – Confirmed by
High Court – On appeal, held : 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 on appreciation of evidence the order of termination
was approved, thereafter fresh reference u/s.10 challenging the order
of termination was not permissible – 2015 order passed by the
Industrial Tribunal which as such is a higher forum than the Labour
Court had attained finality – Though the aforesaid fact was pointed
out before the High Court, it did not consider the same – 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 – Award
passed by the Labour Court confirmed by High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 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
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 276
276
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
277
application under Section 337(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 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. 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.
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 judgment and award passed by the
Labour Court setting aside the order of termination. The
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
confi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.