- (1.) THIS special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been fifed against the order of learned Single Judge of this Court dated January 17, 1992 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and the order dated September 26, 1989 passed by the Labour Court (Tribunal), Udaipur has been upheld.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of this case which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent No. 1 was working as a driver with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as the Corporation ). The respondent No. 1 while on duty on April 25, 1984, as driver of Bus No. 6024 demanded Rs. 10/- from the conductor Nathu Singh and on refusal he abused and gave beating to him due to which Nathu Singh sustained simple and grievous injuries. The respondent No. l was medically examined and found in an intoxicated condition. Thereafter he was charge-sheeted and after due enquiry the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Corporation after considering the matter agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and terminated the services of the respondent No. 1 on November 6, 1984. The respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority of the Corporation but the same was dismissed vide order dated January 10, 1985. The Conciliation proceedings were initiated but when those proceedings failed, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur for adjudication on November 9, 1987 by the State Government. A claim petition was filed on April 20, 1988 by the respondent No. 1 in pursuance to the notice issued by the learned Tribunal. The appellant Corporation also filed reply along with the relevant documents on May 11, 1988. The learned Tribunal found that there was no illegality in the enquiry conducted by the E. O. and ordered to reinstate the respondent without back wages vide order dated September 26, 1989. The appellant Corporation preferred a writ petition, but the same was dismissed on January 17, 1992. Hence, this special appeal filed by the appellant Corporation.
(3.) MR. Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition filed against the order of the learned Tribunal. When the Tribunal has held that the charge of misconduct levelled against the respondent No. 1 has been proved then the punishment meted out to him could not have been interfered. He has also submitted that looking to the gravity of misconduct committed by the respondent No. 1 the punishment awarded to him does not suggest any victimisation. When the learned Tribunal itself has found the misconduct of the petitioner grave then the order of reinstatement passed by the learned Tribunal is against the settled principles of law. In this respect he has placed reliance on a decision of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. v. The Management and Ors. reported in 1973-I-LLJ-278, Aditya Mills Ltd. v. Ram Dayal and Ors. reported in 1973-1-LLJ-538 and Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad v. Hussainmiya Chandmiya reported in 1987 LLN 152. Mr. Rajvanshy, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that the award of lesser punishment is within the competence of the learned Tribunal and the High Court should not interfere. He has also submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised his discretion after placing reliance on the decision 'rendered in Jitendrasingh Rathore v. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. reported in 1984-II-LLJ-10.;