[2025:RJ-JP:6591] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1544/2013 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through the Chief Manager, Matsya Nagar Depot, Alwar ----Petitioner Versus 1. Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar 2. Rajasthan Parivahan Nigam Sanyukta Karamchari Federation, Alwar through Jhuru Khan Son of Patadiya, Sixty Feet Road, Alwar, Rajasthan, Rajasthan Parichalak Rajasthan Rajya Path Parivahan Nigam, Matsya Nagar Depot, Alwar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/02/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned award dated 27.09.2012 passed by the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Alwar (for short, ‘Tribunal’) by which the application filed by the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as ‘workman’) under Section 10 (1)(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’) has been allowed and the impugned punishment order dated 27.03.2001 passed against the workman has been modified and his penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been reduced to penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect and the rest of the punishment order has been retained as it is. [2025:RJ-JP:6591] (2 of 4) [CW-1544/2013] 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while making inspection of the vehicle, it was found that six passengers were found without tickets and the aforesaid misconduct was admitted by the delinquent workman and at his request an enquiry was not conducted. Counsel submits that looking to the aforesaid misconduct of the workman, a punishment order was passed against him on 27.03.2001 by which three annual grade increments of the workman were ordered to be withheld with cumulative effect. Counsel submits that apart from the above, three more punishments were imposed upon him i.e. forfeiture of his suspension allowance, recovery of Rs. 2,000 from his salary and warning was given for remaining careful in future. The aforesaid action of the petitioner was assailed by the workman before the Tribunal by way of filing statement of claim and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that misconduct of the workman was proved and a confession was also made by the workman but even then the penalty order has been unnecessary interfered with and modified from stoppage of three annual grade increments to stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. Counsel submits that once the misconduct of the workman was found to be established then there was no reason or occasion available with the Tribunal to interfere with the said punishment order, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. Counsel further submits that when the workman was caught, he admitted that he would accept the punishment, awarded by the petitioner- Corporation. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that [2025:RJ-JP:6591] (3 of 4) [CW-1544/2013] the petitioner-Corporation suffered a total loss of only Rs. 18/- and looking to the above factual aspect of the matter, the impugned punishment order was found to be disproportionate and accordingly, the same was modified vide impugned order dated 27.09.2012. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, rest of the three punishments order was retained as it is. Counsel for the respondent lastly argued that during the pendency of this petition, the workman has retired. Counsel submits that under hence these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and this petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the workman was discharging his duties on the post of Conductor and an inspection was conducted by the team of the petitioner on 16.02.2001 wherein it was found that six passengers were travelling without tickets and a remark was made in the book maintained by the respondent-workman. This fact is not in dispute that the workman has admitted his guilt and thereafter, a chargesheet was served upon him wherein he accepted the charges and requested the authorities not to conduct any enquiry and on the basis of the misconduct of the workman, a punishment order was passed against him vide order dated 27.03.2001 by which his three annual grade increments were ordered to be withheld with cumulative effect. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the workman approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the misconduct of workman was established as six passengers were [2025:RJ-JP:6591] (4 of 4) [CW-1544/2013] travelling without tickets but looking to the fact that the petitioner Corporation has sustained a financial loss of Rs. 18/- only and looking to the misconduct of the workman, his penalty order was modified to stoppage of one annual grade increment and the rest of the penalty imposed upon him was ordered to be retained as it is. 7. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and looking to the financial loss of Rs. 18/- only, sustained by the petitioner- Corporation, the impugned punishment order dated 27.03.2001 passed by the respondents for stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect was excessive and disproportionate, hence, the order passed by the Tribunal requires no interference of this Court. 8. The present writ petition stands dismissed, accordingly. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/32