MADAN LAL SHARMA Vs. JUDGE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant-workman Shri Madan Lal Sharma against the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 2. 7. 2001 in SBCWP No. 2667/2001 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant herein was dismissed upholding the order of the Industrial Tribunal which had been pleased to hold that the application filed by the workman-appellant under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 was not maintainable. While upholding the order of the Industrial Tribunal, the learned Single Judge was pleased to make certain observations indicating that the appointment of the petitioner-appellant was purely temporary in nature as a Conductor who had been appointed on daily wages and daily wager has no right to hold the post as it was not a substantive appointment. While recording these observations, the learned Single Judge has also observed that the order of termination of the services of the petitioner/appellant was a simplicitor order of termination of a temporary daily-wages employee and this order nowhere casts stigma on the services of the petitioner-appellant.

(2.) THE aforesaid order of the Industrial Tribunal as also the order of the learned Single Judge has been challenged by the appellant-workman and first of all it has been contended on his behalf by learned counsel for the appellant-workman Shri Gupta, that the order of termination passed by the respondent RSRTC although did not disclose that his services had been terminated on account of a charge of misconduct and a simple order of termination was passed merely stating that his services had been dispensed with on account of his appointment being temporary in nature, the order in fact was passed due to charge levelled against him that he had carried passengers as a Conductor in the bus without issuing tickets to them, although money had been realised from them.

(3.) ON perusal careful reading of Section 33-A (a) & (b) it is clear that an application under that provision can be entertained and adjudicated as if it were reference only if there is a complaint existing against the workman and the order of termination having not been based upon any complaint, alleged by the respondent the respondent RSRTC had a legal ground in its favour to dispense with the services without taking recourse to the lengthy procedure of proving the misconduct, obviously because the appointment was temporary in nature.