- (1.) IN pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by a co -ordinate Bench, this matter came up for its adjudication in the spirit of Lok Adalat.
(2.) THIS petition for writ is preferred to challenge the award dated 07.01.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate government under a notification dated 04.08.1998 in the terms that "Whether the termination of workman Mr. Bagdu Ram S/o Mr. Chaina Ram (represented by Mal Singh/Babu Lal, Members, Roadways Employees Union, Jodhpur) by his employer the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jodhpur under an order dated 02.07.1980 is just and valid ? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled ?" Briefly stated, facts of the case are that workman Bagdu Ram entered in service being appointed as Conductor on regular basis under an order dated 29.12.1979. He was subjected to disciplinary action under a charge -sheet dated 19.04.1980 for carrying 14 ticketless travellers in bus, where he was discharging the duties of Conductor. A case was also registered against him under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Road Transport (Prevention of Ticketless Travellers) Act. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry exonerated the workman from the charges levelled, however, the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the same passed the order dated 02.07.1980 imposing the penalty of removal from service. An appeal preferred by the workman also came to be rejected on 03.03.1982. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority and its affirmance by the appellate authority, the workman preferred a petition for writ before this court, which was admitted for hearing. However, the same came to be rejected on 10.10.1995 on the count of availability of alternative remedy. The workman was relegated to avail the remedy under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'). The workman, thus, raised an industrial dispute before the competent conciliation officer and ultimately a reference of the dispute was made by the appropriate government on 04.08.1998.
(3.) LEARNED Labour Court after examining the entire material available on record arrived at the conclusion that if the disciplinary authority was in disagreement with the enquiry officer, then he should have given reasons for such disagreement and an opportunity of hearing too should have been given to the workman in this regard. As per the Labour Court, non -availability of the reasons for discrimination and also non -grant of opportunity of hearing to the workman makes his removal bad.;