HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8805/2021 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, (R.S.R.T.C.), Jaipur Through Its General Manager (Kray/bhandar)/ Authorize Disciplinary Officer, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Shyamlal Sharma S/o Shri Ramswroop Sharma, (Conductor), R/o Gram Dhanipur, Post-Barolichhar, District - Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma Ms. Manorma Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Ghiya Mr. Vinod Kumar Mathur JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’) has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge-sheet was served upon the respondent-workman (for short, ‘the workman’) with the charge that he was carrying 11 passengers without ticket at the time of inspection of the vehicle. Counsel submits that after holding an enquiry, a decision was taken to terminate the services of the workman vide order dated 24.05.2002. Counsel submits that for seeking approval of workman, an application under Section 33(2)(B) of the Act of 1947 was submitted before the (2 of 3) [CW-8805/2021] Tribunal. Counsel submits that the approval has been denied by the Tribunal only on a technical count that domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was found to be illegal and the said order was not assailed by the petitioner before any forum of law and the same has attained finality. Counsel submits that this cannot be a ground for denial of approval for termination of service of the workman, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents oppose the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submit that when the charge-sheet was served upon the workman, a detailed reply to the same was submitted and without any justified reasons, the termination order of the workman was passed. Counsel submits that when the petitioner submitted the aforesaid application under Section 33 (2)(B) of the Act of 1947 before the Tribunal seeking approval for the termination order of the workman, during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, a finding of fact was recorded that domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was unfair and invalid. Counsel submit that the aforesaid order was never assailed by the petitioner, hence the same became final, hence under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments put-forward by counsel for the workman and looking to the fact that domestic enquiry conducted (3 of 3) [CW-8805/2021] against the workman was found to be unfair and invalid by the Tribunal and the same order was not assailed by the petitioner before this Court or before any other competent Court, meaning thereby that the said order has attained finality. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ajmer Central Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. The Labour Judge and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer and Ors. reported in 2016(1) WLC(Raj.) UC 497 and this Court in the case of Chief Manager Vs. Om Prakash and Anr. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12820/2011 on 30.08.2024 has specifically held that once the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is found to be unfair and invalid and the said order is not assailed before any competent Court of law and subsequently, the same attains finality then under these circumstances, the application filed by the employer under Section 33(2)(B) of the Act of 1947 is liable to be rejected. 6. Considering the above proposition of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank Limited (Supra) and Om Prakash and Anr. (Supra), this Court finds no valid reasons to take a different view. 7. This petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed and the order passed by the Tribunal is upheld. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/41