Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Bharat Singh Jhala: Quashing of Termination Order

In this significant legal case, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) challenged a decision that quashed the termination of an employee, Bharat Singh Jhala, who had been dismissed for misconduct. The appeal stemmed from a prolonged legal battle over the fairness of the dismissal and the subsequent legal proceedings that unfolded over many years. This case underscores the legal principles surrounding industrial disputes, termination orders, and the powers of judicial bodies like the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Courts.

The facts of the case are relatively straightforward. The appellant, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, had terminated the services of the workman, Bharat Singh Jhala, for alleged misconduct. Specifically, the charges were related to Jhala’s failure to issue tickets to ten passengers, despite collecting fare payments. Following the departmental inquiry, Jhala’s services were terminated on July 31, 2001. The dismissal triggered a chain of legal events, ultimately leading to a Labour Court decision that would set aside the termination order and award the workman back wages. However, this decision was contested and led to further appeals.

The central issue in this case revolved around whether the Industrial Tribunal’s earlier approval of the termination order was sufficient to prevent the workman from challenging the decision again through an industrial dispute raised nearly two decades later. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation argued that since the Industrial Tribunal had already approved the termination order, there was no ground for the Labour Court to reverse it. Furthermore, the corporation claimed that the delay of 19 years in raising the dispute should not be allowed to affect the outcome of the case.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/compassionate-appointment-after-24-years-a-legal-perspective-on-anusree-k-b-vs-fertilizers-and-chemicals-travancore-ltd/

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act were distinct from those under Section 10 of the Act. They referred to the ruling in the case of John D’Souza vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation to assert that findings made under Section 33(2)(b) were summary in nature and did not bar a full examination of the dispute under Section 10 of the Act. Moreover, the respondents contended that the Labour Court had rightly set aside the termination order and awarded back wages.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment delivered by Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari on September 30, 2022, carefully examined the facts and legal principles involved. The Court noted that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) were indeed summary in nature and that the Industrial Tribunal had already considered the evidence and approved the termination order. The Court observed that the Labour Court had erred in not recognizing the finality of the Industrial Tribunal’s decision and had wrongly overturned it.

The most crucial point in the Court’s reasoning was the recognition that once the Industrial Tribunal had approved the termination order, it had attained finality. As such, any subsequent challenge to the termination order could not be entertained. The Court emphasized that the Labour Court’s role in reviewing such matters was limited, and it could not take a contrary view to the findings of the Industrial Tribunal, which had already heard evidence from both sides.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted the specific order passed by the Industrial Tribunal permitting the RSRTC to lead evidence and prove the charges against the workman. This was a pivotal element of the case, as it distinguished this case from others like John D’Souza, where such a specific order had not been made. The Court ruled that the findings of the Industrial Tribunal were binding, and the Labour Court could not override them.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/compassionate-appointment-after-24-years-the-case-of-fertilizers-and-chemicals-travancore-ltd-vs-anusree-k-b/

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal by RSRTC, quashing the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, which had set aside the termination order. The decision underscored the principle that once a higher forum like the Industrial Tribunal had considered and approved the termination, it could not be revisited by lower courts like the Labour Court. The Court’s judgment brings clarity to the interpretation of industrial dispute proceedings and the limitations of Labour Court decisions in such cases.

The case also sheds light on the procedural aspects of employment disputes and the significant role that judicial review plays in determining the fairness of termination decisions. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation’s victory is a reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the finality of decisions made by higher judicial bodies.

Petitioner Name: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.
Respondent Name: Bharat Singh Jhala (Dead) Son of Shri Nathu Singh, through Legal Heirs & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Krishna Murari.
Place Of Incident: Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 30-09-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: rajasthan-state-road-vs-bharat-singh-jhala-(-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-30-09-2022.pdf