[2025:RJ-JP:27622-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 627/2024 Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Hindaun Depot. ----Appellant Versus 1. Mohanlal Yadav S/o Shri Bhiwaram, Post- Conductor (Since Deceased) During Pendency Of Proceedings 2. Smt. Prem Devi W/o Late Shri Mohanlal Yadav, R/o Hadota, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nitin Sinsinwar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 24/07/2025 The challenge is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 06.08.2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 29.04.2024. The learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide its order dated 29.04.2024 had dismissed the application filed by the appellant-writ petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the count that after the death of the workman on 27.05.1998, when legal representatives were taken on record at the instance of the appellant-writ petitioner on 21.09.2022, the domestic enquiry was held to be unfair. [2025:RJ-JP:27622-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-627/2024] Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner submits that after a long delay, the order was passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and the appellant-writ petitioner ought not to have made to suffer on account of the said delay. We find that the learned Single Judge has examined the aspects and held as under:- “Perusal of the record indicates that a departmental chargesheet was served upon the respondent-workman with the charge of carrying 5 passengers without ticket. After completion of the domestic enquiry the charges were found to the proved against him and accordingly a decision was taken for terminating his services. This fact is not in dispute that for seeking approval of the termination order of the respondent-workman an application was filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 before the Tribunal, this fact is also not in dispute that the said application remained pending before the Tribunal for considerable period of time and in the meantime, the respondent-workman was expired on 27.05.1998. This fact is not in dispute that after death of the respondent-workman an order was passed by the Tribunal on 21.09.2022 by which it was held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was found to the unfair, thereafter an application was submitted by the legal representatives of the respondent-workman for their substitution and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.10.2022. The Tribunal was of the view that once domestic enquiry was found to be unfair against the workman, then no fresh enquiry can be conducted after his death, as the legal representatives of the deceased-workman are not aware about the charges and the defence cannot be taken by a dead person. Hence considering these facts and circumstances of the case with the strength of the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Prem Kumari (supra) & Sukhveer Singh (supra) the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The order passed by the Tribunal is just and [2025:RJ-JP:27622-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-627/2024] proper which requires no interference of this Court. Hence, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Taking into consideration the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any reason to differ with the same. The law is well settled that it is the onus of the concerned employer to move application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to see that the matter is decided. We notice that in years the appellant-writ petitioner did not take any steps for bringing LR’s on record. As soon as LR’s were taken on record, the concerned learned Tribunal proceeded, hence, no case is made out for interference in the present appeal. The present Special Appeal Writ is found to be misconceive and is accordingly, dismissed. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/Mahima/02