JETHU SINGH Vs. R S R T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Jethu Singh working as a driver with the respondent No. 1, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation for short R. S. R. T. C. was charge sheeted along with the conductor of the bus for carrying 48 passengers out of 60 passengers travelling in the bus without tickets. In the domestic enquiry both the petitioner driver as well as the conductor were found guilty and, therefore, both of them were removed from service. THE petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 18. 5. 87 immediately on that date i. e. on 18. 5. 87 an application was made by the Corporation before the Tribunal for granting approval to its order. THE application was also made in case of conductor. It is stated by the petitioner in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 837/88 that the petitioner was hopeful that he will hear from the Tribunal about this but as he had not heard from the Tribunal for a reasonable time, therefore, he approached this court by way of this petition. It is further stated that the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the appellate authority on the legal advice, which came to be dismissed on 11. 1. 1988. It is further stated that, thereafter, the petitioner was adviced to enquire from the office of the Tribunal about the fate of the application filed by the Corporation for granting approval to its order, but his counsel Shri S. K. Jain adviced him that it was not possible for him to get any information in this behalf and therefore, there was a delay in filing the writ petition which was filed in April 1988. Thus the delay of one year in filing the writ petition was sought to be explained. In para No. 14 a categorical statement made on oath that the petitioner has got no other equal efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy available except to appro- ach this Hon'ble Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction. This statement made on oath is on the face of it is false. Infact the learned counsel for the petitioner conceeds that the petitioner had better efficacious and alternative remedy available before the Labour Court. THErefore, this petition is also required to be dismissed on the ground of false statement made on oath.

(2.) THIS petition is also required to be dismissed on the ground of delay because the delay has not been satisfactorily explained.

(3.) SECONDLY, each case has to be decided on its own facts. The order passed by the Tribunal not granting approval in case of conductor was not produced before me. It was only orally submitted that the Tribunal refused to grant approval on the ground that the conductor was not given one month's salary. On consideration of the facts before it, if the Tribunal thought it fit to grant approval and reject the con- contention of the petitioner regarding not paying one month's salary to the petitioner driver then this Court cannot exercise its powers under Art. 226 or 227 of the Constitution, as no jurisdictional error was committed by the Tribunal. The only competent court is Labour Court to appreciate this question as it is a question of fact.