[2025:RJ-JP:31096] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9213/2009 Chief Manager Rsrtc Kota, Through Its Head Office, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Jaipur Through Officer I/C Sh. KK Mathur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ibrahim S/o Shri Chandu Khan Through General Secretary, General Mazdoor Union, 2-S-4, Mahaveer Nagar Trityia Kota, Rajasthan 2. The Judge Industrial Tribunal, Kota ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 11/08/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Kota (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has modified the penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and forfeiture of benefits arising during the suspension period, by imposing alternative lesser penalty of monetary fine of Rs.500/-. 2. Facts of the case are that while the respondent- workman was working on the post of Driver, on 16.01.1986, he committed serious misconduct in collusion with the conductor of the bus, where on inspection 51 passengers were found without ticket and they also snatched the Way bill from the Inspecting [2025:RJ-JP:31096] (2 of 4) [CW-9213/2009] Party. Pursuant to the aforesaid misconduct, charge-sheet was issued to the respondent-workman and ultimately after enquiry punishment order dated 12.04.1989 was passed for imposing penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increment with cumulative effect as well as forfeiture of remaining payment of suspension period. 3. The respondent-workman raised industrial dispute, which was ultimately referred by the appropriate Government to the learned Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that during the proceedings before the Tribunal, the question of fairness of enquiry was examined and the enquiry was found to be fair and proper. Once the enquiry has been held to be fair and proper, the scope of interference by the learned Tribunal under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is very limited. Learned counsel further submits that only within the narrow confine of Section 11-A of the Act of 1947, inference on the question of quantum of punishment can be done and that too where the punishment awarded was dismissal, discharge or removal from service; and in respect of no other penalty, any interference qua quantum of penalty can be made. However, learned Tribunal has transgressed its jurisdiction by modifying the penalty of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect to a much lesser penalty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it was a case where 51 passengers were found without ticket and in such cases of serious misconduct, the disciplinary authority had already taken a lenient view and awarded a lesser punishment. [2025:RJ-JP:31096] (3 of 4) [CW-9213/2009] Therefore, in the case of such grave misconduct, the Tribunal has virtually exonerated the respondent-workman by supplanting the decision taken by the disciplinary authority, for which learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction whatsoever. 6. Despite service, nobody is present to the respondent- workman even in the second round. 7. I have examined the record and heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Bare perusal of Section 11A of the Act of 1947 would make it clear that where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to learned Labour Court/Tribunal for adjudication then during the course of adjudication proceedings, the learned Labour Court or learned Tribunal as the case may, in proper cases, set aside order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions as it thinks proper or can give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. 9. Thus, the statutory provision is quite clear that powers have been conferred upon the learned Labour Court or Tribunal under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to interfere in quantum of punishment only in limited cases of dismissal or discharge; and in no other case. 10. In the instant case where penalty awarded to the respondent-workman was of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, in case sufficient material was available with the learned Tribunal, it has power to quash the [2025:RJ-JP:31096] (4 of 4) [CW-9213/2009] punishment itself in entirety, but had no power whatsoever to modify the penalty which was already awarded by the disciplinary authority. While adjudicating the reference, the learned Labour Court or Tribunal cannot substitute the discretion already exercised by the disciplinary authority on the question of quantum of punishment. 11. In view of above, where learned Tribunal has stepped out of its jurisdiction by passing the impugned order dated 08.05.2009, the instant writ petition is allowed and the order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kota is hereby quashed and set-aside. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/16