NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has moved an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but at the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the arguments were heard in the writ petition itself and the same is being disposed of finally.
(2.) The respondent No. 1 Abdul Hussain is working on the post of Driver of petitioner-Corporation. The Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Jhalawar vide its judgment and order dated 29.8.1996 decided two claim applications filed on behalf of legal representatives of deceased persons, who died in motor accident took place on 26.4.1995 and held that accident took place on 26th April, 1995 and held that accident took place because of negligence on the part of non-claimant i.e. driver of the Corporation, which is the respondent No. 1 herein. Soon after filing of the claim applications by the legal representatives of the deceased persons, the petitioner corporation suspended the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 27.4.1995 and served a charge-sheet dated 19.5.1995. The petitioner vide its order dated 13.5.1997 passed an order for dismissal of the petitioner from service and moved an application for its approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated 14th December, 1998 declared the enquiry held by Corporation as illegal and unfair and granted time to petitioner-Corporation to lead evidence in support of charge. Thereafter two witnesses Ramotar Solanki and Bheem Shankar Sharma, both were examined on behalf of the Corporation. The workman examined himself and also examined Nand Kishore Vyas in support of defence. The Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated 17.3.2001, after considering the evidence available on record, came to a conclusion that both the witnesses of Corporation namely Ramotar Solanki and Bheem Shankar were not eye witness to the accident, whereas workman as well as his witness both have stated that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and consequently recorded a finding that accident dated 26.4.1995 was not due to rash and negligence driving on the part of the respondent No. 1 Abdul Hussain. The Industrial Tribunal also considered the judgment dated 19th January, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Chaumahala, whereby non-petitioner-workman Abdul Hussain was acquitted from the charge under Section 304-A and 279 IPC for the same incident. Consequently, the Tribunal did not accord the approval for dismissal order passed by the Corporation against respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved with the said order of the Tribunal, the Corporation has preferred the present writ petition.
(3.) The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed an award against the Corporation on the basis of finding regarding rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1, therefore, the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated and Industrial Tribunal committed an illegality in not granting the approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.;