The Division Bench of justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari hearing an appeal of labour law rued that "Once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led before it, thereafter the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were binding between the parties. No contrary view could have been taken by the Labour Court contrary to the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal."

The Supreme Court on an appeal filed by RSRTC, observed that "The termination was the subject matter of the approval application before the Industrial Tribunal in an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. In the said proceedings the management was permitted to lead the evidence and prove the charge/misconduct before the Tribunal. In the said application the parties led the evidence, both, oral as well as documentary. Thereafter on appreciation of evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal by order dated 21.07.2015 approved the order of termination. Thereafter the workman raised the Industrial Dispute challenging the order of termination which as such was proved by the Industrial Tribunal by order dated 21.07.2015. Therefore, once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal and the management was permitted to lead the evidence and prove the misconduct before the Court and thereafter on appreciation of evidence the order of termination was approved, thereafter the fresh reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act challenging the order of termination was not permissible. It is required to be noted that the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal which as such is a higher forum than the Labour Court had attained the finality. Though the aforesaid fact was pointed out before the High Court, the High Court has not at all considered and/or appreciated the same and has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court for setting aside the order of termination which as such was approved by the Industrial Tribunal."

The relevant brief facts of the case are that the workman was serving on the post of Conductor. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him alleging not issuing the tickets to 10 passengers though he collected the amount of tickets. In the department inquiry, he was found guilty of the misconduct alleged. The employer–Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation terminated his services vide Order dated 31.07.2001.

An application for approval of punishment order under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was submitted before the Industrial Tribunal on 31.07.2001. The Industrial Tribunal held the enquiry bad. However, the Industrial Tribunal vide Order dated 12.12.2012 allowed the appellant-Corporation to prove the charges before the Tribunal. Both the parties led the evidence before the Tribunal on the charges alleged. The appellants led, both, oral as well as documentary evidence. That on appreciation of the 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. That thereafter and 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. 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 Award passed by the Labour Court was challenged before the High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and Division Bench by judgment dismissed the appeal.

While arguing for the respondent advocate HD Thanvi submitted before the court that under Section 33(2)(b) and Section 10 of the I.D. Act are distinct and different. It is submitted that as observed and held by this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid decision the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act are summary in nature and findings recorded while deciding the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act shall not affect the substantive right in a reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act. The workman has died and his heir -widow is awarded 50% back wages only, the same may not be interfered by this Court in the exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India."

Advocate Ritu Bhardwaj appearing for the appellant argued before the court that "It is submitted that once in an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act and pursuant to the earlier order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant was permitted to lead the evidence and prove the charge/misconduct and thereafter when the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal, thereafter it was not open for the workman to again raise the Industrial Dispute that too after a period of 19 years. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has materially erred in confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court quashing and setting aside the order of termination which as such was approved by the Industrial Tribunal by order dated 21.07.2015."

The Apex Court finally observed that "In view of the above, the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court confirmed by the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court has committed a very serious error in dismissing the writ petition/writ appeal confirming the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court setting aside the order of termination."

Case Details:-

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6942 of 2022
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation     … Appellant
Versus
Bharat Singh Jhala (Dead) & Anr.                  … Respondent

Read the complete judgment on the link below:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/25059/25059_2021_7_1504_38707_Judgement_30-Sep-2022.pdf