DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC Vs. HEMARADDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCEPTING the cause shown, the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A.No.2/2013 is allowed.

(2.) BASED on the proved charge that the respondent had failed to collect fare from four passengers and failed to issue tickets to such four passengers, he was dismissed from service after holding enquiry. The order of the Disciplinary Authority is set aside by the Labour Court in Reference No.30/2011. The Corporation approached this Court in W.P.No.85656/2012 questioning the award made by the Labour Court. The order of termination of service of the respondent was set aside in the writ petition mainly on the ground that the order dated 25.05.2010 is not preceded by permission under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act'). Learned Single Judge also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Jaipur Zilla Sahakar Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma, 2002 2 SCC 244 in support of the said ground. No other facts are adverted to by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) IN our considered opinion, learned Single Judge is not justified in ignoring the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Satya Prakash, 2013 AIR(SCW) 3611 which declares that Section 33 A of the Act has a definite purpose to serve i.e. to provide a direct access to the Tribunal and thereby a speedy relief, instead of seeking time consuming procedure of seeking a Reference under Section 10 of the Act. Once the complaint under Section 33 A of the Act filed by the party was adjudicated like reference and misconduct is proved, it was not open for the learned Single Judge to take reference to Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge cannot be accepted in view of the aforementioned judgment in the case of Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation.