- (1.) The impugned order and award dated 3rd February, 2004 passed by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer in Case No.SITR-19/2000, is the subject matter of the challenge in the instant writ application by the petitioner/workman, an employee of the respondent - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent/Corporation', for short). The Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal upheld the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect, inflicted upon the petitioner/workman.
(2.) Briefly, the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised in the instant writ application are: that the petitioner/workman was served with a charge-sheet on 19th April, 1990, for carrying seven passengers on the bus of the respondent/ Corporation bearing No.4098 on 7th April, 1990 while discharging the duties as 'Ticket Collector' at Ajmer Depot on Ajmer/Boarward Route. Since, the reply to the charge-sheet was not found satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was conducted against the petitioner/workman. The Enquiry Officer returned a finding of the charge partially proved. The Disciplinary Authority having considered the facts, circumstances and materials available on record, found the petitioner/workman guilty of carrying seven passengers without ticket, on the bus of the respondent/Corporation after having received a sum of Rs.10.50. The petitioner also misbehaved with the 'Inspection Team'. The Disciplinary Authority having considered the totality of the facts, circumstances and materials available on record, imposed a penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 30th September, 1990. The appeal preferred by the petitioner/workman was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner/workman has neither placed the memo of the appeal on record, nor challenged the order of the Appellate Authority, confirming the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Be that as it may, the petitioner/workman raised an industrial dispute by way of an application before the Conciliation Officer and on submission of a failure report, the State Government made a reference to the Labour Court/Tribunal. The statement of claim filed by the petitioner/workman was responded by the respondent/Corporation repelling the pleaded facts and grounds. The Labour Court/Tribunal taking into consideration the pleaded facts, materials available on record and evidence produced, declined to interfere with the order of penalty imposed by the respondent/Corporation vide impugned order/award dated 3rd February, 2004.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/workman assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order/award dated 3rd February, 2004, vehemently argued that the Labour Court/Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of record, in not properly appreciating the contents of the reference, as it was very much an industrial dispute raised by the employee's union on behalf of the petitioner/workman. The learned counsel would further submit that the Labour Court/Tribunal failed to appreciate that the domestic enquiry initiated and concluded, was based on surmises and conjectures since the Enquiry Officer found the charges partially proved against the petitioner/workman. Further, the Labour Court/Tribunal fell in gross error of law while making retrogative remarks against the petitioner/workman on the basis of the surmises and conjectures. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect, completely ignored the testimony of the independent witnesses as well as conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and placed reliance only on the statement of the Inspection Team. Furthermore, while the Labour Court/Tribunal referring to the delay of ten years for not raising any industrial dispute, simultaneously also examined the merits of the case and therefore, the impugned order/award dated 3rd February, 2004 is bad in the eye of law.;