[2025:RJ-JP:38670] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7174/2003 1. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Alwar Depot. through Officer-In-Charge. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Akbar Ali son of Shri Chahat Singh, R/o Village Jaisinghpur, District-Faridabad (Haryana), Ex-Driver, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Alwar Depot. 2. Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Sunder Sharma on behalf of Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 19/09/2025 1. Even in the second round, nobody is present to represent the respondents. 2. Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition challenging the award dated 28.12.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') filed by the respondent No.1 has been allowed and termination of his services w.e.f. 17.04.1987 has been quashed and directions have been given to reinstate him along with all consequential benefits. 3. It is stated that the respondent No.1-Akbar Ali was appointed as daily wager at Alwar Depot of Rajasthan State Road [2025:RJ-JP:38670] (2 of 4) [CW-7174/2003] Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC') on 16.12.1986 on the post of Driver. While he was driving the bus on 16.04.1987, he caused an accident and on the very next day his services were terminated. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondent-workman that he was a member of the trade union and that the trade union raised one general reference No.92/86 before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, which was pending. Nevertheless without seeking any permission or approval from the Tribunal, services of the respondent-workman were terminated in violation to Section 33A of the Act of 1947. 4. It has also been submitted that as the respondent- workman was removed on account of alleged misconduct of causing accident, therefore, he could not have been removed without getting approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. 5. The petitioner-Corporation filed reply to the writ petition stating therein, that respondent-workman was not a member of the trade union and he did not even complete services for 240 days. Hence, he was not entitled for any opportunity of hearing over services or duties. However, ignoring the stand of Corporation, order dated 28.12.2002 was passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 17.04.1987 has been held to be illegal and directions for reinstatement with back-wages have been given. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that although the order dated 28.12.2002 have been passed by the learned Tribunal without considering the pleadings of the parties, material on record and law prevailing at the relevant time, yet [2025:RJ-JP:38670] (3 of 4) [CW-7174/2003] even otherwise the relief of reinstatement with all other consequential benefits granted by the learned Tribunal is against the settled position of law and against the recent judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 8. Bare perusal of the award dated 28.12.2002 would make it clear that the petitioner has utterly failed to place any evidence on record, in order to show that the respondent- workman was not a member of trade union, which filed an application in general reference No.92/86. Without there being any cogent evidence in this regard, learned Tribunal has rightly decided this fact against the petitioner, hence, there is no scope for interference so far as finding given by the learned Court below that the termination of the respondent-workman was illegal. 9. However, so far as question of relief is concerned, it is evident from the record that the respondent-workman had worked for less than one year and as per petitioners he was simply engaged as daily wager. His services were also terminated in the year 1987 i.e. around 28 years back. Hence, under these circumstances looking to the irregular appointment of the respondent-workman, the relief of reinstatement granted by learned Tribunal cannot be said to be justified and tenable in the eye of law. In the case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Anr. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20902/2024] decided in 29.01.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement in such cases, and has also given one formula that [2025:RJ-JP:38670] (4 of 4) [CW-7174/2003] Rs.1.5 lakhs per year can be paid as compensation in place of relief of reinstatement for rendering services of one year. 10. In view of above discussions, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in the light of directions given in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey (supra). 11. In the instant case, since the respondent-workman has not completed services of even one year, however, in the interest of justice, the impugned award dated 28.12.2002 is modified to the extent that in lieu of relief of reinstatement with all other consequential benefits, the respondent-workman would be entitled for compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs. The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the respondent-workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum till actual realization. 12. Ordered accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/11