Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner -Corporation', for short), in the instant writ application, projects a challenge to the award made by the Labour Court, Jaipur dated 4th June, 1997, in Case Number L.C.R.196/88, on a reference made by the appropriate government vide order dated 12th October, 1988. The Labour Court while answering the reference in affirmative and in favour of the respondent/workman (Dhanna Ram), since deceased, made an award for reinstatement with continuity of service as well as full back wages and all consequential benefits, holding the termination of employment as illegal and invalid.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the skeletal material facts, which are essential for appreciation of the controversy raised in the instant writ application while assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 4th June, 1997, needs to be first noticed. The respondent/workman was appointed in substantive capacity as 'Driver' by the petitioner -Corporation in the year 1976. The respondent/workman was served with a charge sheet on 5th June, 1982, for rash and negligent driving on 13th October, 1978, while he was employed as Driver on the Bus of the petitioner -Corporation with Registration Number RRM -1078, resulting into death of a passenger traveling in the Bus. The accident occurred near Deedwana Railway Crossing. The dependents of the deceased passenger filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for short), whereupon an award dated 4th June, 1981, for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/ - (Rupees: Fifteen Thousands Only) along with an interest @ 6% with effect from 3rd March, 1979, till the realization of the amount to the dependents of the deceased passenger. The Tribunal while making an award of compensation observed that the petitioner -Corporation as well as the Driver of the Bus (respondent/workman), were responsible for the accident; and therefore, held them liable for compensation jointly and severally. The reply to the charge sheet by the respondent/workman, was not found satisfactory and the petitioner -Corporation appointed an Enquiry Officer to inquire into the charges levelled against the respondent/workman. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 25th March, 1983, with the observation and finding that the matter has already been adjudicated upon by the Tribunal while awarding compensation, and therefore, no contrary finding could be arrived at, contrary to the decision already arrived at by the Tribunal/Court. The Enquiry Officer further observed that if any appeal was pending before any Appellate Court, as stated by the respondent/workman, the fact may be verified and any proposed action against the respondent/workman, may be kept in abeyance pending decision of the appeal. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 25th September, 1985, agreeing with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer as well as with the judgment and order made by the Tribunal dated 4th June, 1981, awarding compensation of Rs. 15,000/ - (Rupees: Fifteen Thousands Only); inflicted the penalty of removal from services in exercise of the powers under Regulation 34 read with 36(7). The respondent/workman raised an industrial dispute challenging the legality, validity and correctness of the office order dated 25th September, 1985, which ultimately has been adjudicated upon by the Labour Court, Jaipur, vide impugned award dated 4th June, 1997. Mr. V.S. Yadav, learned counsel, on behalf of the petitioner -Corporation/employer, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application and the stand before the Labour Court in the reply to the statement of claim; vehemently argued that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court dated 4th June, 1997, is bad in the eyes of law for the same is based on assumptions and presumptions. Further, there is no legal evidence to sustain the impugned award. The findings arrived at during the course of adjudication on the reference made, are without jurisdiction as well as without application of mind so also against the settled propositions of law.
(3.) THE learned counsel would further submit that in the departmental enquiry strict rules of evidence, as required under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are not attracted and law in this regard is no more res -integra. The charges levelled against the respondent/workman were not required to be proved to the hilt, and therefore, the Labour Court fell in gross error and exceeded it's jurisdiction by extensively quoting the evidence recorded by the Criminal Court while interfering with the findings arrived at in the departmental enquiry conducted.;