- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) In both the matters, the parties are same and second matter arises out of order passed in first matter, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed off, by this common judgment.
(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that workman/respondent No.1-Ranjeet Singh Choudhary was holding the post of Conductor in the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. He was served with a Charge-sheet No.552, dated 21.02.1994 and Charge-sheet No.349, dated 02.05.1992. The Enquiry Officer found both the charges to be proved and on the basis of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 29.04.1997(Annexure-1), whereby service of respondent No.1 was terminated. The appellant-Corporation filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before Industrial Tribunal for grant of approval to the termination order. During pendency of the above application, the Industrial Tribunal considered the question relating to fair and proper enquiry and vide its order dated 03.02.1999(Annexure-2), declared the enquiry against respondent No.1 as unfair and improper. The learned representative of the appellant-Corporation sought an opportunity to prove the charges in the Tribunal by adducing evidence, which was granted to it. Thereafter, both the parties led their respective evidence in respect of both the charges. The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 21.08.2004(Annexure-7), discussed and appreciated the evidence and recorded a finding that the Corporation has failed to prove the charges against the workman and consequently, while rejecting the application of the Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, refused to approve the termination order of workman/respondent No.1, dated 29.04.1997.;