R.M. Lodha, J. - (1.) The present appellant has failed in the proceedings under Sec. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal as well as the Single Judge of this court in the writ petition. He has challenged the order dated 3.12.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and the order dated 14.2.2006 passed by the Single Judge in this appeal. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the appellant, 'workman' and respondent Nos. 2 to 4, 'employer'. The workman is said to have been appointed intermittently as Conductor in various depot of the employer for some period from the year 1987 until June, 1988. Then by an order dated 21.5.1993 he was appointed as Conductor in the Ajmer Depot and at the relevant time deputed on Jobner -Ajmer route. On 23.11.1993, at the time of sudden check and inspection of the vehicle wherein the workman was on duty as Conductor, nine passengers were found without ticket; out of them, two passengers were travelling from Sambhar to Ajmer, one passenger was travelling from Phulera to Ajmer, two passengers were travelling from Sambhar to Dudu and one passenger was travelling from Sambhar to Ajmer. The total fare of these nine passengers who were found travelling without ticket was Rs. 98/ -; the workman had received fare from seven passengers. The inspection report was signed by the driver as well as the workman. For the misconduct conducted by him, on 23.11.1993, by an order dated 14.1.1994, workman's services were terminated. He challenged the termination order in departmental appeals unsuccessfully. Then he filed civil suit but later -on the said suit was withdrawn and he made an application under Sec. 33A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'Act of 1947'). Inter -alia, he raised the grievance that the order of termination dated 14.1.1994 suffered from breach of the principles of natural justice and Standing orders and also the provisions contained in Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947.
(2.) The employer contested the application of the workman under Sec. 33A and various objections were raised including that the complaint under Sec. 33A was not maintainable. In the reply, in the alternative, the employer craved leave to prove the charge of misconduct in the proceedings if the complaint was held maintainable.
(3.) By its order dated 28.2.1998, the industrial tribunal held that the complaint was maintainable and that the services of the workman were terminated on the charge of misconduct without holding any inquiry. However, the industrial tribunal granted permission to the employer to prove the charge of misconduct in the proceedings U/s. 33A.;