[2025:RJ-JP:33413] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 266/2018 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chief Manager, Jaipur Agar ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rameshwar Dayal, Through Its Legal Heirs- Resident Of Village Karwadi, Post Bibi Rani, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar. 2. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Sahdev Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur 3. Jai Narayan S/o Shri Ramji Lal, Aged About 78 Years, Resident Of Village Karwadi, Post Bibi Rani, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar 4. Sunder W/o Shri Jai Narain, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Village Karwadi, Post Bibi Rani, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar 5. Bimla Devi W/o Late Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Resident Of Village Karwadi, Post Bibi Rani, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar 6. Manisha Kumari D/o Late Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Aged About 17 Years, Resident Of Village Karwadi, Post Bibi Rani, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar 7. Manju Kumari D/o Late Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Aged About 15 Years, Resident Of Village Karwadi, Post Bibi Rani, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar 8. Bhupendra S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Aged About 13 Years, Resident Of Village Karwadi, Post Bibi Rani, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar 9. Anita Kumari D/o Late Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Aged About 10 Years, Resident Of Village Karwadi, Post Bibi Rani, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar 10. Kapil S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Aged About 7 Years, Resident Of Village Karwadi, Post Bibi Rani, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:33413] (2 of 3) [WRW-266/2018] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendar Neel For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 22/08/2025 1. The petitioner by way of review petition seeking review of the order dated 13.7.2017 passed by this Court submitting that provisions of law relating to aspect of enquiry having been declared as fair and consequences affected thereto was not considered by this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his contention. The review petition is filed as it appears is based on the observations made by the Division Bench. The arguments advanced was that in reference to Section 32B of the Industrial Development Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’), a domestic enquiry is found to be fair. The Labor Court cannot decide the case on merits of the matter. 3. The Division Bench observes that the said argument having not been taken up before the learned Single Judge may be now addressed in review. 4. A mere look to Section 32B of the Act of 1947 reflects that if the employer wants to dismiss or discharge or punish any workman for any misconduct connected with the dispute, expressed permission in writing of the authority is required to be taken before proceeding, where there is no proceeding or dispute pending. [2025:RJ-JP:33413] (3 of 3) [WRW-266/2018] 5. From the above, it is apparent that permission by the authority would be granted if it forced that a misconduct has been committed and not otherwise. Thus, a finding has to be arrived at by the Labor Court/Industrial Court on the legality of the enquiry. 6. Legality of the enquiry is two-fold, one is with regard to the following of principles of natural justice, meaning thereby giving opportunity to the concerned delinquent to defend his case and the second is the aspect where the Labor Court or Industrial Court will look into the ultimate findings of the enquiry officer and if he found that there is a perversity or misreading of evidence or where there is no evidence, then the Court may refuse to give permission holding that the misconduct is not proved. 7. The view expressed above is sufficient to not interfere in the review petition. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J RAHUL MIRKHANI/5