- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 9/9/1996, passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and directed the Rajasthan State Road transport Corporation to pay an amount of rs. 14,465. 04 to the petitioner as claimed by him in the claim petition. The learned single Judge, also, awarded the interest at 12 per cent per annum on this amount.
(2.) RESPONDENT Bheeka Ram was working as a conductor with the appellant corporation. He was placed under suspension vide order, dated 6/2/1979, on the charge that 28 passengers out of 64 passengers, travelling in the bus on which the respondent-petitioner was the conductor, were found ticket less when the checking was made on 29/1/1979. A criminal complaint under Sec. 8 of the rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Prevention of Travelling Passengers without ticket) Act, 1975, against the respondent on the same charges was, also filed. The departmental enquiry was also conducted against the respondent-petitioner.
(3.) IN the criminal case though the respondent-petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court but he was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal field by him. The revision petition filed by the Corporation against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, was dismissed by the High Court. Though he was found guilty in the departmental enquiry and the punishment was imposed but after acquittal of the respondent-petitioner in the criminal case, he was ordered to be reinstated in service but the benefit of back-wages was not accorded to him. He filed an application under S. 33c (2) of the Act of 1947 for the grant of back-wages but that application was dismissed. The respondent-petitioner filed the writ petition claiming the back-wages and other consequential benefits. A preliminary objection was raised by the appellant-Corporation that no order could have been passed under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, for the grant of back-wages and the order, by which the back-wages were not granted to the respondent, has not been challenged by him and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.;