NORTANMAL JOSHI Vs. RSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 3-9-2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. It is a case where respondent- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') moved an application under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') to seek approval of the order of punishment of dismissal from service. The application aforesaid is pending before the tribunal since 1995. The enquiry held by the Corporation was declared unfair, however, Corporation was given liberty to lead evidence to prove the charges. The petitioner workman moved an application for grant of interim relief/subsistence allowance during the pendency of approval application. The application aforesaid was dismissed by the tribunal vide impugned order dated 3-9-2012.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner workman submits that on declaring enquiry to be unfair, the workman becomes entitled to subsistence allowance as an interim measure thus dismissal of the application for interim relief is illegal. The learned tribunal failed to consider that during the pendency of approval application under section 33(2)(b) of the Act, an interim order can be passed of the nature prayed by the workman. The tribunal, however, failed to consider its jurisdiction as per the settled law thus while setting aside the impugned order, petitioner workman may be awarded subsistence allowance during pendency of case before the tribunal. To support the arguments, reference of the judgments of this court in the case of "Chief Manager, Ajmer through Head Office, RSRTC v. Hitlar Prasad & Anr.", SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5717/2012, decided on 29-8-2012 has been given. Therein, similar controversy was decided by this court in reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Hotel Imperial, New Delhi & Ors. v. Hotel Workers Union, 1959 AIR(SC) 1342 . In the aforesaid case, it was held that Industrial Tribunal can grant interim relief in the appropriate case.

(3.) Another judgment referred by learned counsel for petitioner-workman is in the case of "Manager, Jaipur Syntex Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors.", 1989 59 FLR 99and, lastly, the case of "Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. K Kempaiah", 2001 88 FLR 616. It is submitted that in those cases, interim relief was granted to the workman during the pendency of case before the Industrial Tribunal.