- (1.) Aggrieved of the order dated 30th November, 2010, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ( for short, the Corporation), has instituted the present writ application praying for the following relief(s): "(i) Quash and set aside the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur in M.I.T. Case No.309/1993; and (ii) While allowing the application so filed by the petitioner corporation under Section 33(2) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, approval of the order dated 07.09.1993 passed by petitioner may kindly be granted; (iii) Any other appropriate order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; (iv) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) Shorn off unnecessary details, the indispensable skeletal material facts, are that the petitioner-Corporation proceeded with a domestic enquiry for overwriting/cutting and manipulation of the record of the Corporation by the respondent-workman while performing his duties as Conductor on the vehical of the Corporation. The Enquiry Officer on conclusion of the enquiry on both the charges, affording an apportunity of hearing and cross-examination to the respondent-workman, returned a finding of guilt. Copies of the enquiry reports were furnished to the respondent-workman and he was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. The process ultimately led to termination of the services of the respondent-workman, vide order dated 7th September, 1993 (Annexure-7). The petitioner-Corporation filed an applicaton under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947', for short), for approval and confirmation of the order dated 7th September, 1993, terminating the employment of the respondent-workman; which was declined by the Industrial Tribunal on 30th November, 2010, of which the petitioner-Corporation has aggrieved of.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation, Mr. Vinayak Joshi, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 30th November, 2010, declining the application for approval of the order of dismissal of the respondent-workman dated 7th September, 1993, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law for the domestic enquiry, was held to be fair and valid by the Tribunal and thereafter it was not open for the Tribunal to enter into re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the departmental authority. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal, on one hand held the domestic enquiry as fair and valid, as would be evident from the order dated 25th March, 2003, and on the other hand recorded a finding that the Enquiry Officer committed gross illegality while returning a finding of guilt on the basis of evidence and materials available on record. Thus, illegality is apparent on the face of record.;