Divyanshi Shukla and Karanveer Singh Khaira
Introduction
The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation versus Bharat Singh Jhala (Dead) Son of Shri Nathu Singh, through Legal Heirs & Anr,[1] held that if an Industrial Tribunal had approved a termination order, it is binding on the parties and hence, Labour Court cannot take a divergent view on the same. This judgment was the result of an appeal plea by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. According to the Supreme Court, the judgment passed by the Labour Court was not rightly confirmed by the Rajasthan High Court and hence is not sustainable. Therefore, the appeal plea was accepted before the Supreme Court. This article aims to briefly outline and analyse the decision.
Facts of the Case and Judgment
The workman was a Conductor in the Rajasthan State Road Corporation Limited. A departmental inquiry against him was initiated for not issuing tickets to 10 passengers though he collected the fare due. In the departmental inquiry he was found guilty of misconduct. His services were terminated by his employer– Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation by an order dated 31.07.2001.
An application for approval of punishment order under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as “the I.D. Act”) was submitted before the Industrial Tribunal on 31.07.2001. The tribunal held the inquiry to be bad but allowed the Corporation to prove the charges before the Tribunal. On appreciation of entire evidence on record and considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 21.07.2015 allowed the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act and granted the approval of the order of termination.
After a period of approximately 19 years from the date of passing the order of termination, the workman again raised the Industrial Dispute challenging the order of termination of 2001. By Judgment and Award dated 19.11.2019 the Labour Court, Jaipur allowed the said reference and set aside the order of termination. As in the meantime the workman died and the dispute was raised after a period of 19 years, the Labour Court passed an order awarding 50% back wages from the date of termination till his death i.e.,10.12.2018.
The Judgement and Award of the Labour Court was challenged by the appellant Corporation before the Single Judge Bench of the High Court which dismissed the writ petition. The appellant appealed before the Division Bench challenging the dismissal of writ petition by the Single Judge. By impugned judgment and order the High Court dismissed the said appeal which led to the present appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that finding recorded by these tribunals like the Industrial Tribunal in the present case is binding upon the parties. The Labour Court could not take any contrary view to the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the Court noted that the judgment passed by the Labour Court and later confirmed by the High Court is not sustainable and by confirming it the High Court has committed a “serious error” and hence, the present appeal was allowed in the Supreme Court and the order of termination and the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court setting aside the order of termination were quashed and set aside.
Legal Provisions:
The important provisions related to the judgment are as follows:
Article 136 of the Constitution of India vests the apex court, Supreme Court of India with a special power to grant special leave, to appeal against any judgment or order or any decree in any matter or cause, passed or made by any Court/ tribunal in the territory of India.
Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 states that no workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding in pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.
Conclusion
The judgment thereby clarified the legal binding value of findings reported by the Industrial Tribunal. If the findings are based on evidence, they are binding on the parties and even the Labour Court scannot take any contrary view. Moreover, doing so would be committing a “serious error”. Therefore, the appeal was allowed in the Supreme Court and the order passed by the Labour Court was quashed and set aside.
Read the judgement at 25059_2021_7_1504_38707_Judgement_30-Sep-2022.pdf (sci.gov.in)
[1] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6942 of 2022; September 30, 2022
Leave a Reply