MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
(2.) The appellant in the aforesaid writ petition challenged validity of award dated 25.07.2011 passed by Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Alwar(for short 'the Labour Court'), whereby the Labour Court, while answering the reference on the question of validity of removal of the appellant from service by the respondent no. 1-management vide order dated 10.06.1993, held the same to be legal and justified. Learned Single Judge upheld the award relying on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 06.07.2004 passed in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Vinod Kumar Sharma and Another (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 255/2004). It may be pertinent to note here that the Respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid special appeal before Division Bench of this Court against judgment of the Single Bench of this Court dated 23.02.2004 where under order dated 18.04.1998 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') dismissing their application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') refusing to grant approval for dismissal of appellant, was upheld.
(3.) Facts of the case are that on 29.08.1991, the bus of Respondent No. 1-management, on which the appellant Vinod Kumar Sharma was working as conductor, was inspected at a place known as Nangal Meena by the vigilance team. Total 48 passengers were found in that bus, out of which 15 were found without tickets. It was alleged that the appellant already collected fare from these passengers, but did not issue tickets to them. A charge sheet was served upon him for this misconduct and in a domestic enquiry, charge was found proved against the appellant. After issuance of notice upon the appellant, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of removal from service upon him vide order dated 10.06.1993. As already noted above, the application filed by Respondent no. 1-management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act seeking approval of removal order was disallowed by the Tribunal, which order was upheld by the Single Bench of this Court. However, the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 06.07.2004 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 255/2004 reversed both the judgments and granted approval for dismissal of appellant under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The appellant, thereafter, approached the appropriate Government which made a regular reference vide notification dated 15.06.1999 and referred the dispute to the Labour Court that whether removal of the appellant by the respondent-management was legal and valid and if not, what relief was he entitled to The Labour Court vide award dated 25.07.2011 upheld the removal of the appellant to be legal and valid and further held him not entitled to any relief. The learned Single Judge vide judgment impugned in the present appeal has upheld the award of the Labour Court relying on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 06.07.2004 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 255/2004, granting approval of removal of the appellant under the scope of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Following observations were made by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment, while granting approval of removal of the appellant: "According to him 13 ticket-less passengers were students who had refused to make payment of the due fare and they were travelling on the roof of the bus. But he has not set up any such plea at the time of inspection of the bus by the flying squad. There were only 48 passengers in the bus and the inspection memo as well as the inspection note made on the way bill indicate that they were all travelling inside the bus and not on the roof. The story of 13 ticket-less passengers being students and they were travelling on the roof is not borne out from the record. If there has been any truth in this plea, he could have very well examined the driver in support thereof or could have made a representation immediately after the checking to the concerned authorities. But he having not done so, this plea does not appear to be believable. If, he had not collected the fare from those 13 passengers, he would not have deposited their fare in the Corporation treasury and would have lodged his protest with the flying squad. This apart, of 13 ticket-less passenger were students who had refused to take the tickets, he could have taken the bus to the nearest police station and lodged a report against them in this regard, but he has not done so which also belies his plea and the story appears to be cooked up and after thought." ;