Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
The Chief Manager, Rajasthan Transport … vs Motiram S/O Pokharram … on 11 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:6722]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8461/2025
The Chief Manager, Rajasthan Transport Corporation, Bhilwara.
----Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
Motiram S/o Pokharram, Ex-Conductor, R/o Village & Post-Yalsar,
Tehsil-Laxmangarh, District-Sikar, (Raj.)
----Respondent/Non-Applicant
For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma Advocate.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
11/02/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
against judgment dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Industrial
Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, ‘ the Tribunal’), whereby application
under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for
short, ‘the Act of 1947’), filed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara, has been dismissed.
2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that as
the respondent-workman was carrying 32 passengers without
tickets on 16.08.1994 in Bus No. 3072 on Bijolia-Bhilwara route,
charge-sheet under Clause 34 of the Rajasthan State Road
Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965,
was issued to him on 13.09.1994. Due opportunity of hearing was
given to the workman and after conducting enquiry, the order of
dismissal from service was passed on 20.02.1998. Thereafter,
petitioner-Corporation filed application under Section 33(2)(b) of
the Act of 1947 after making necessary compliance of serving the
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:51:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:20:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6722] (2 of 4) [CW-8461/2025]
order to the workman along with one month’s notice pay as well
as filing the application on the same day before the Tribunal.
However, vide order dated 28.11.2024, the enquiry held by the
petitioner-Corporation was declared to be unfair and improper.
Thereafter, opportunity was granted to the petitioner-Corporation
to prove the charges before the Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner-Corporation produced sufficient evidence before the
Tribunal to prove that the respondent-workman was carrying
passengers without tickets and was also habitual of committing
such misconduct in the past also, as he was charged with the
similar allegations. He also submits that the proceedings under
Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 are summary proceedings and
the Industrial Tribunal cannot meticulously examine the evidence
treating it to be reference proceedings under the Act of 1947.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
even otherwise, it is a settled proposition of law that in
departmental proceedings, decision is taken by the employer on
the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by proving the
charges beyond reasonable doubts.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
merely on account of the fact that the enquiry was held to be
improper and unfair by the Tribunal, the decision earlier taken by
the Disciplinary Authority cannot be substituted by giving perverse
and irrational findings by not giving cogent reasons for
disbelieving the evidence laid by the petitioner-Corporation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of John
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:51:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:20:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6722] (3 of 4) [CW-8461/2025]
D’Souza vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
reported in 2019 (18) SCC 47 in support of her contention that
the scope of proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of
1947 is quite limited and learned Tribunal has transgressed its
powers while passing judgment dated 07.04.2025.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the record.
8. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the
petitioner that while examining the question of fairness of enquiry,
order dated 28.11.2024 was passed by the Tribunal, whereby the
enquiry earlier conducted by the petitioner-Corporation was held
to be improper and unfair, It has also not been disputed that the
order dated 28.11.2024 was not challenged by the petitioner-
Corporation at the relevant time and the petitioner, without raising
any protest, participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal
and thereafter, as per the liberty granted by the Tribunal, the
petitioner led its evidence which has been meticulously considered
by the Tribunal.
9. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
learned Tribunal could not have taken independent evidence by
ignoring the evidence earlier collected by Disciplinary Authority of
petitioner-Corporation, is totally misconceived and against the
Scheme of the Act of 1947. It is a settled proposition of law that
as and when, on examining the application under Section 33(2)(b)
of the Act of 1947, the Labour Court or the Tribunal comes to the
conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the employer was not
proper, the Labour Court or the Tribunal is bound to give
opportunity to both the parties to lead the evidence. As such, no
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:51:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:20:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6722] (4 of 4) [CW-8461/2025]
error or mistake has been committed by the Tribunal in permitting
the parties to the petition to lead evidence in support of their
respective cases.
10. The witness produced by the petitioner-Corporation was
stranger to the inspection proceedings, which were the basis of
charge-sheet, hence, could not prove the charges and documents
relied by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Hence, under these
circumstances, sound and rationale finding has been given by the
Tribunal to hold that since the petitioner-Corporation has failed to
prove the charges, therefore, inflicting penalty of dismissal upon
the respondent-workman was not valid and proper.
11. In the case of John D’Souza (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has also held that the Labour Court or Tribunal,
while exercising their jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) of the
Act of 1947, are empowered to permit the parties to lead evidence
in respect of the legality and propriety of the domestic enquiry
held into the misconduct of a workman. Thus, the aforesaaid
judgment relied upon by the petitioner is of no help to the
petitioner-Corporation.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no scope for
interference in judgment dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Tribunal
and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
MANOJ NARWANI /8
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:51:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:20:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
