BHANWARLAL Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
LAWS(RAJ)-1984-3-15
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on March 12,1984

BHANWARLAL Appellant
VERSUS
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

WILLINGALE V. NORRIS [REFERRED TO]
WICKS V. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS [REFERRED TO]
VINE V. NATIONAL DOCK LAB. BOARD [REFERRED TO]
BARBER V. MANCHESTER REGIONAL HOSP. BOARD [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA V. S.R. TEN -DOLKAR [REFERRED TO]
PANNALAL BRIJRAJ V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KALYANMAL BHANDARI V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWARLAL V. RQJASTHAN S.R.T. CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
RIDGE V. BALDWIN [REFERRED TO]
MALLOCH V. ABERDEEN CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
L.I.C. V. NILRATAN BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
JOHN FERNANDEZ V. EX. ENG. P.H. DIVN. ALLEPPEY [REFERRED TO]
AUSTIN DISTRIBUTORS V. NIL KUMAR DAS [REFERRED TO]
LORD DENNING IN BEETHAM V. TRINIDAD CEMENT LTD. [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STEEL TUBES LTD. V. ITS MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED TO]
U.P. WAREHOUSING CORPORATION V. VIJAYNARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
AMARSINGH V. G.S.R.T. CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
KASTURILAL LDKSHMI REDDY V. STATE OF J. AND K. [REFERRED TO]
JAPAN KUMAR V. G.M. CALCUTTA TELEPHONES [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMLAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HARISHANKAR BAGLA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PARSHOTAM LAL DHINGRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAM RAM NARAIN MEDHI BHASKAR VINAYAK TENDULKAR PANDURANG GANPAT RAMCHANDRA LAXMAN BALWANT OAK KUBERDAS HARGOVINDDAS VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI PERSHAD MAHTAB SINGH SURENDAR DEV GAUR VS. ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
SHALIMAR WORKS LIMITED THE WORKMEN OF SHALIMAR WORKS LIMITED VS. THEIR WORKMEN: SHALIMAR WORKS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
I P R CHOWDHARY S GANGOLI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DALMIA CEMENT BHARAT LIMITED NEW DELHI VS. THERI WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BABU RAM UPADHYA [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH PRASAD SHARMA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
P J IRANI VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY GURBUX DAS INTERVENER VS. RANGACHARI [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF MARINA HOTEL VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
BAGALKOT CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS. B K PATHAN [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED NEW DELHI VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
S R TEWARI VS. DISTRICT BOARD AGRA NOW ANTARIM ZILA PARISHAD AGRA [REFERRED TO]
JUGDISH MITTER VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. SUNIL KUMAR MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF DEWAN TEA ESTATE VS. THEIR MANAGEMENT [REFERRED TO]
T G SHIVACHARANA SINGH C I RAJOO NAIDU V SANJEEVAIAH G SRINIVASA RAO MOHAMED HAFEEZ KHAN H GOPINATH RAO E H MANOHAR SINGH M U LAXMAN B MOHAMMAD ASADULLAH K R SESHADRI IYENGAR K M A BAVOOF KHAN KUMMAJI RAO VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
CINEMA THEATRES VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
GURDEV SINGH SIDHU VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MAFATLAL NARANDAS BAROT VS. J D RATHOD DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER STATE TRANSPORT MEHSANA [REFERRED TO]
HARI CHAND SHARDA VS. MIZO DISTRICT COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR VS. MOHAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
KOSHAN LAL TANDON KUNJ BEHARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. S R JAYARAM [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF THE BANGALORE WOOLLEN COTTON AND SILK MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE U P WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. CHANDRA KIRAN TYAGI [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION VS. SUKHDEO RAI [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA RAM MISRA VS. MANAGING GOMMITTEE SHRI JAI NARAIN COLLEGE [REFERRED TO]
SIRSI MUNICIPALITY VS. CEGELIA KOM FRANCIS TELLIS [REFERRED TO]
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. KHAN CHAND: RAM CHANDER JAGDISH CHANDER [REFERRED TO]
R S SIAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MAGANLAL CHHAGANLAL PRIVATE LIMITED PARWATIBAI PUNDALIK LEGAD UMAR HABIB BIBI BATOOL PARWATIBAI PUNDALIK LEGAD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY:THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURTS:J R VIMADALAL:ENQUIRY OFFICER:THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURTS [REFERRED TO]
SAMSHER SINGH ISHWAR CHAND AGARWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
L MICHAEL VS. JOHNSON PUMPS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV SINGH THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION THE L 1 C LIMITED THE INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. BHAGATRAM SARDAR SINGH RAGHUVANSHI:THE ASSOCIATION OF CLASS II OFFICERS 0 N G C:SHYAM LAL SHARMA:THE INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPN [REFERRED TO]
TARA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. N SUNDARA MONEY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBU NATH GOYAL VS. BANK OF BARODA [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. P S MALVENKAR [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER GOVERNMENT BRANCH PRESS VS. D B BELLIAPPA [REFERRED TO]
RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
R R VERMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AJAY HASIA VS. KHAUID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI [REFERRED TO]
SOM PRAKASH REKHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. NERGESH MEERZA [REFERRED TO]
MALKHAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HARDAYAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S N SESHADRI VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR LIC BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH DAS VS. RAMESH CHANDRA PATNAIK [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN VS. EAST INDIA DISTILLERIES AND SUGAR FACTORIES LTD [REFERRED TO]
S V RAMAN VS. MADRAS STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
ASST PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY VS. K T ANTONY [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR P KHARKHAR VS. RAGHURAJ [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

VIJAI SINGH VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR BANSAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
HARENDER NARAIN BANKER VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1985-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
SAT NARAIN VS. HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1994-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
GOPI LAL TELI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1995-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. CHAVDA RASIKBHAI DAAYABHAI & ANR. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-366] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. RASIDKHAN RAHIMKHAN [LAWS(GJH)-2020-1-287] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.M.LODHA J. - (1.)DURANTE bene placito' ruled the world with waves of 'laissez faire' up to 19th century, Political as well as Industrial revolutions brought new tides of workers emancipation from exploitation resulting in new concepts of 'status', 'security of service', 'releases from bonded labour'. Not to talk of Karl Marx or Lenin, even Abraham Lincoln and Roosvelt pleaded for 'Dignity of Labour', 'Equality', Dueprocess of law, and that resulted in New Deal Legislations, Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, the Founding fathers of the great Indian constitution brought the dream of 'Ravi' true when preamble of the 'Socialist Republic of India' embodied 'Equality' of status' and 'opportunity'. Justice, 'social, economic and political' targets 'followed' by Directives and fundamental rights of equality in Article 14 and equal opportunity in services in Article 16.
(2.)ARTICULATION of 14 and 16 in 1948 and 43A in 1976, whether gave death blow to 'durante bene placito' is even now a billion dollar question, as the Model Standing Order's ideal, even in 1983 is Clause 13 of Pre -Constitution origin of 1946 under which an employer can 'Hire and Fire' any permanent employee of 'status.'
The legal debate now is multifacets but the triology is Articles 14, 16 and 43A of the Constitution. The precedent triology consists of Motiram Deka 1964 -II L.L.J. 467 of Apex Court - interpreted by Murthys 1982 -I L.L.J. 268 enunciation of Karnataka and Makalu 1983 Lab. IC 350 of Bombay with Amarsing 1980 -21 Guj. LR 500 of Gujarat. To understand and appreciate the various dictums of law from Shyamalal : (1954)IILLJ139SC to Air Hostess 1981 Lab IC 1313 (SC), we have to travel through plethora of decisions of Apex Court and yet we are not wiser, as in 1981, we have been taking inspiration from 1946 models of British concepts, with sometimes useful but mostly futile exercise of scanning decisions and yet adopting old out -lived models even on new horizons.

(3.)NO one can tolerate gross indiscipline, corruption scandals, violent and rowdism in 'Boss chambers' or Corporation corridors and Courts can ill -afford to encourage them bordering on abetment. But veiled, camouflaged and masked actions of termination simpliciter in such cases whether raise eyebrows of 'rule of law', 'natural justice' patronagists is important facet in such 'endeavours' termination, in an economy cursed by massive unemployment may be termed as a draconian measure of last resort. 'Causa causans' of misconduct needs enquiry and not 'termination simpliciter' under Standing Orders and the Court can unveil and unmask the hidden foundation by removing plaster of 'innocuous' camouflage.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.