Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Smt. Saroj Devi Wife Of Late Shri Brij … vs Chief Manager (2026:Rj-Jp:16324) on 17 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:16324]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2723/2020
1. Smt. Saroj Devi Wife Of Late Shri Brij Bhushan Sharma
(Ex- Conductor, Kota Depot), Aged About 60 Years, By
Caste Brahman, R/o Near Falsa Wala Hanumanji, Plot
No.J-2, Janta Colony, Behind P.G. College, Dausa (Raj.).
2. Atul Kumar S/o Late Shri Brij Bhushan Sharma, By Caste
Brahman, R/o Near Falsa Wala Hanumanji, Plot No.J-2,
Janta Colony, Behind P.G. College, Dausa (Raj.).
3. Anoop Kumar S/o Late Shri Brij Bhushan Sharma, By
Caste Brahman, R/o Near Falsa Wala Hanumanji, Plot
No.J-2, Janta Colony, Behind P.G. College, Dausa (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
Chief Manager, Kota Depot/ Executive Director (Traffic),
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Kota (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rewarmal Bairwa
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
17/04/2026
1. On the request and with the consent of learned counsel
appearing on behalf of both the parties, the present writ petition is
taken up and heard for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
dismissal of the claim filed by the petitioner by way of a complaint
under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’).
3. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act
of 1947, raising the issue of contravention of the requirement
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 09:13:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 06:59:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16324] (2 of 6) [CW-2723/2020]
under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947 while terminating the
petitioner for the alleged misconduct of allowing seven passengers
to travel without tickets. The petitioner was terminated on the
ground of the proven charge of allowing seven passengers to
travel in the bus without tickets. While moving the complaint
under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947, the petitioner raised an
objection with regard to the non-compliance of Section 33(2) of
the Act of 1947 while terminating the petitioner on the proved
charge of allowing seven passengers without tickets.
4. The contravention is alleged on the ground that the
Industrial Dispute No. I.T.R. 102/2001 was pending before the
Industrial Tribunal between the Rajasthan Transport Workers
Union and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC).
The dispute was relating to the authority of the employer to
recover financial punishment after retirement by ordering
deduction of such amount from the gratuity of a retired employee.
5. Initially, an objection was raised by the respondents herein
with regard to the maintainability of complaint under Section 33-A
of the Act of 1947 on the ground that the reference which was
pending was not relating to the service conditions of an existing
workman and was in respect of a retired workman.
6. The Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the petition was
maintainable and proceeded to decide on merits. While dismissing
the complaint of the petitioner, the Tribunal went beyond the
scope of adjudication of complaint under Section 33-A of the Act
of 1947. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint on the ground that
there was an ample evidence to show that misconduct was
proved, which means the Tribunal went on to decide the merits of
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 09:13:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 06:59:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16324] (3 of 6) [CW-2723/2020]
the termination order instead of confining itself to whether the
provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1947 apply to the
complainant/workman and, if applicable, whether there was any
non-compliance with the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of
1947.
6A. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 33 of the Act
of 1947, which reads as under:
“[33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain
unchanged under certain circumstances during
pendency of proceedings.–(1) During the pendency of
any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a
Board or of any proceeding before [an arbitrator or] a
Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of
an industrial dispute, no employer shall,–
(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute,
alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in
such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to
them immediately before the commencement of such
proceeding; or
(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute,
discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise,
any workmen concerned in such dispute, save with the
express permission in writing of the authority before
which the proceeding is pending.
(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect
of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance
with the standing orders applicable to a workman
concerned in such dispute [or, where there are no such
standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the
contract, whether express or implied, between him and the
workman],–
(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with
the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that
workman immediately before the commencement of
such proceeding; or(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 09:13:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 06:59:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16324] (4 of 6) [CW-2723/2020]
(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute,
or discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or
otherwise, that workman: Provided that no such
workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he
has been paid wages for one month and an application
has been made by the employer to the authority before
which the proceeding is pending for approval of the
action taken by the employer.
(3) XXXXXX
(4) XXXXXX
(5) XXXXXX ”
7. A reading of Section 33(1) of the Act of 1947 shows that if
any action is contemplated altering the service conditions or
relating to misconduct connected with an existing dispute before
the Tribunal, no action shall be taken against the workman without
obtaining permission from the authority before which the
proceedings are pending. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 is an
exception to Section 33(1); it relates to any alteration of
conditions or misconduct not connected with the dispute pending
before the learned Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal or any other
authority. The dispute which was under reference related to
service conditions which are enabling the employer to deduct
amount from the gratuity of retired employees with regard to any
punishment order passed in monetary terms.
8. A similar issue was raised by another set of
employees/workmen of the APS with regard to the same
reference. This Court, vide order dated 04.11.2015, passed an
order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6055/2015 titled as The
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation & Anr. vs. Mohan Singh Baghala. The relevant
part of the order dated 04.11.2015 (supra) reads as follows:
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 09:13:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 06:59:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16324] (5 of 6) [CW-2723/2020]“The perusal of terms of the reference does not reveal that
respondent is a concerned workman. The dispute raised
therein pertains to the claim of gratuity by the retired
employees against whom order for stoppage of gratuity was
passed as a measure of punishment. The Tribunal has
committed a grave illegality in holding that pending
reference would not be limited to those who have raised it
but would be applied to the respondent-employee herein
also. The respondent-workman is presently in service and
not a retired employee and not subjected to stoppage of
gratuity. In fact, therein the retired employees were denied
benefit of gratuity by passing order of punishment after their
retirement. Whether action of stoppage of gratuity is valid or
not would be decided by the Tribunal in respect to few
retired employees only. The respondent is not a concerned
workman therein so as to require approval of the order of
punishment by filing an application under Section 33(2)(b)
of the Act of 1947.Section 33(2)(b) applies when pending
dispute is concerned to the workman but therein misconduct
committed by him is not connected with the dispute. It is
true that misconduct committed by the respondent is not
connected with the dispute pending before the Industrial
Tribunal but at the same time, respondent-employee is not
the concerned workman as required for application of
Section 33(2)(a) of the Act of 1947. The words “concerned
workman” used under Section 33(2) are of significance but
has not been appreciated by the Tribunal.”
9. A reading of the above findings clearly indicates that the
matter which was sub judice under the reference was relating to
the service conditions of retired employees and not the service
conditions of workmen so as to attract the provisions of Section 33
of the Act of 1947. These findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court were also affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 09:13:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 06:59:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16324] (6 of 6) [CW-2723/2020]
Court. The same is reflected from the order impugned in the
present writ petition.
10. In view of such findings, this Court cannot again go into the
validity of such findings in the present writ petition. However, this
Court finds that the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order,
went beyond its jurisdiction in deciding the merits of termination.
The Tribunal is not supposed to decide the merits of the
punishment order, which is beyond its scope. The merits of such
punishment can only be decided in independent proceedings by
raising an industrial dispute. The dispute was relating only to
contravention of Section 33 of the Act of 1947; the Tribunal was
required to confine itself to examining whether such contravention
was made out or not, and not beyond that. Therefore, the findings
rendered by the Tribunal touching upon the merits of the
punishment order are without jurisdiction and the same are set
aside.
11. The aforesaid findings shall not come in the way of the
petitioner’s right to challenge such proceedings before the
appropriate forum.
12. In view of the above, the present writ petition is partly
allowed.
13. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand dispose of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
37-PoonamS/-
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 09:13:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 06:59:34 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link
