- (1.) The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the service of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short the 'Corporation') in the year 1985. His service was terminated in August 1986. He was again appointed on daily wages by order dated, 27.10.86. On 13.3.87 his service was again terminated. A fresh appointment was given to him once again on 21.4.87. He joined duty on 25.5.87. His service was again terminated on 30.7.87. Against the termination of his service the petitioner filed an application under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. In the said application he alleged that the order passed by the employer on 30.7.87 was contrary to the Standing Orders as well as the principles of natural justice and it was obligatory for the employer to have given a charge-sheet to the employee and to have held an inquiry before terminating the service of the employee. He pleaded that the action of the employer was an example of unfair labour practice. He further stated that a dispute was pending between the Corporation and its employees (I. T. reference No. 92/86) and it was obligatory for the employer to have sought approval under section-33(2)(b) of the Act, but no such approval had been sought and, therefore, termination of service of the petitioner was void. The Corporation has not followed the principle of last come first go and the service of the petitioner has been terminated with the sole object of harassing him. The respondent Corporation contested the application by assertting that the workman was not a concerned workman in regard to reference case No. 12/86. The workman had been appointed on a purely temporary basis and since his service was not required, the Corporation terminated his service in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment. A rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioner and he reiterated that the termination of his service was illegal because no charge-sheet was given to him and no inquiry had been held by the employer.
(2.) Before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner filed his affidavit. On 1.2.92 an application was filed on behalf of the Corporation for permission to prove the allegation of misconduct against the workman. This application was allowed by the Tribunal on 20.2.92. Thereafter, the Corporation examined Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Traffic Inspector, Central Flying Squad. He was cross-examined on behalf of the workman. The petitioner filed another affidavit and he was also cross-examined by the representative of the Corporation.
(3.) After hearing the parties, the Industrial Tribunal held that termination of service of the workman was founded on misconduct and that on the basis of the evidence produced on behalf of the Corporation, the charge of mis-conduct is proved. On the question of quantum of punishment the Industrial Tribunal relied on the decisions of Bombay High Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Digambar Bhimrao Gudadhe & another,1990 2 LLN 456 and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Jamnadas,1982 2 LLN 583 and held that termination of the service of the workman was justified in view of the fact that charge of mis-appropriation of public money had been proved. On the basis of these conclusions the Tribunal upheld the action of the respondent Corporation but declared that relate back theory will not apply and termination would be treated as effective from the date of award i.e. 4.5.82. The Tribunal held that the workman shall be paid wages between 13.3.87 to 4.5.92.;