- (1.) This petition for writ is directed against the award dated 18.9.1997, passed by learned Labour Court, Jaipur in Labour Case. Reference No. 235/1988. In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent workman, under an order dated 25.6.1980, entered in service of the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the RTDC") being appointed as Room Attendant. He was subjected to a disciplinary action as per Regulation 9 of the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to "the Regulations of 1980") with the allegation that while working in the capacity of Room Attendant at RTDC Midway, Behrod, on 13.5.1985 at about 2:50 P.M., when one Smt. Kamlesh Devi, an employee of the RTDC was cleaning the ladies bathroom, he indulged in indecent conduct with her. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of inquiry officer and other relevant record of inquiry, held the respondent workman guilty of the charge and imposed a penalty of removal from service vide order dated 29.3.1986. A review petition preferred by the respondent workman as per Regulation 25 of the Regulations of 1980 also came to be dismissed by the Board of Directors of the RTDC. An industrial dispute, thus, was raised and that was referred by appropriate Government to the Labour Court, Jaipur for adjudication under a notification dated 29.11.1988. The dispute so raised was in the terms that "whether removal of workman Shri Chander Singh, Room Attendant, Sanchar Bhawan, House No. 1824, Khawas Ji Ka Rasta, Jaipur, by Managing Director, Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Jaipur under the order dated 29.3.1986 is just and valid? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled? A statement of claim was filed by the workman with assertion that his removal from service was not in accordance with law and further that the penalty imposed was in excess to the misconduct established.
(2.) In written, the RTDC came forward with a case that the entire inquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of applicable Regulations and all necessary opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself. It was also asserted that the misconduct proved was of quite serious nature, before, the penalty of removal from service cannot be termed as excessive.
(3.) Learned Labour Court, after examining the entire evidence available on record arrived at the conclusion that no error was committed by the disciplinary authority while holding the respondent workman guilty for the misconduct alleged, however, while examining the quantum of punishment imposed, but looking to the fact that the workman tendered apology immediately after commission of misconduct, the penalty of removal from service was excessive. Accordingly, the same was substituted by a penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect.;