R S R T C Vs. KHUB CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the submissions and on scanning the material on record I am satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the instant matter.

(2.) CONTEXTUAL fact depict that the plaintiff respondent (for short `plaintiff') instituted civil suit with the averments that he was appointed in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, `rsrtc') on the post of Conductor on probation in January 1980. When he was on duty on November 1, 1980 on the route of Shahpura Kawat his vehicle was checked and five passengers were found without tickets. After holding the inquiry the services of the plaintiff were terminated vide order dated June 23, 1984. The departmental appeal also was dismissed vide order dated February 5, 1985. During inquiry the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses was not afforded to the plaintiff as such the inquiry was not held properly and the provisions of Section 35 of Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders 1965 (for short, `standing Orders') were not complied with. A prayer, therefore, was made for quashing the order of termination. Defendants appellants submitted written statement stating therein that the plaintiff was not appointed against permanent post and in compliance of the Standing Orders the inquiry was held. There is no provision to supply the copy of inquiry report and show cause notice to the employee. Since the services of plaintiff were governed by the Standing Orders, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought for. As many as four issues were framed by learned Additional Munsif No. 3, Jaipur City, which have been incorporated in the impugned judgment. Learned Munsif vide judgment and decree dated March 23, 1990 decreed the suit. Defendant appellants preferred first appeal against the judgment and decree, but the appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated August 11, 1998. Against the said concurrent finding arrived at by both the courts below, that the defendant appellants have preferred the instant second appeal.

(3.) IN R. S. R. T. C. vs. Zakir Hussain (supra) Two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the object of INdustrial Disputes Act and observed in para 30 thus:- " 30 Learned counsel for the respondent placing strong reliance on the judgment in R. S. R. T. C. vs. Krishna Kant and others (supra) submitted that since the decree has been passed by the trial Court on28. 7. 1989 and the appeal filed by the Corporation was dismissed on 27. 9. 1989 which was pending prior to the judgment reported in 1995 SCR (3) 1118, the respondent is right in approaching the civil court. This contention has no force. This Court has very explicitly summarised the principles flowing from the discussion in the judgment in para 35 and applying the above the principles this Court has categorically held that the suits filed by the employees in those appeals were not maintainable in law. But, however, granted certain reliefs by reducing the back wages etc. etc. in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, in our opinion, the above judgment will not be of any assistance or aid to the claim of the respondent. "