BHAGIRATH MAL RAINWA Vs. JUDGE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER corruption in public services should be overlooked by the courts, whether the court should condone misappropriation, fraud, cheating and similar acts committed by public servant, and whether the court should be a silent and mute spectator of the growing corruption in public services and grant indulgence in cases of proved corruption by public servants? These are the moot questions which arise out of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner who has made strenuous efforts to persuade the court to annual the award dated September 1, 1993 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in reference case No. IT 35/1991.

(2.) IN order to make a detailed examination of the arguments advanced by learned counsel, it will be appropriate to make the brief reference of facts. The petitioner had been appointed in the service of the Corporation on June 25, 1986 on daily wages of Rs. 20 and was posted under Hindon Depot of the Corporation. His service was terminated after he served for about 7 months and 15 days. Though brought about by an order worded innocuously, termination of; service of the petitioner was founded on allegation of misconduct, namely, carrying passengers without ticket after collecting fare from them. The petitioner claimed that he was 'workman concerned' in a dispute which was pending before the Industrial Tribunal and the employer had not sought approval from the Tribunal under Section 33 (b) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act which could be done only by complying with three conditions enumerated in that Section and as such his termination of service is void. With this allegation he filed petition before the Industrial Tribunal Jaipur under Section 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) DURING the course of proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, an application was made by the employer seeking leave to lead evidence in order to substantiate its case, namely, that the termination of service of the workman was in reality on account of grave acts of misconduct committed by him. The Tribunal granted this permission to the employer by its order dated February 4, 1992. Thereafter both the parties led evidence in the form of affidavits and the deponents were subjected to cross examination.