[2025:RJ-JP:37416] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9754/2013 Shri Premchand S/o Shri Kanahiya Lal, aged about 53 years, R/o Sumerganj Mandi, District Baran, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Judge, Labour Court-I, Jaipur Rajasthan 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Depot 3. Managing Director Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Transport Road, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. with Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 15/09/2025 1. Petitioner has assailed the award dated 07.12.2012 passed by the Labour Court-I, Jaipur, whereby the reference relating to the penalty of removal from services has been answered by the learned Court below against the petitioner. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Conductor on 13.01.1980. One charge- sheet dated 17.02.1983 was issued to the petitioner contending the charges that on 09.1.1983, the petitioner was carrying 16 passengers without ticket and the freight was although taken by him, yet ticket was not issued. Pursuant to aforesaid charge- sheet, inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer but proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner and on the [2025:RJ-JP:37416] (2 of 4) [CW-9754/2013] basis of defective and faulty inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has passed an order of dismissal from services on 06.01.1984. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner raised industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court-I, Jaipur, for adjudication. 3. The petitioner filed his statement of claim which was opposed by the respondent-Corporation by the way of filing reply to the statement of claim, thereafter, before proceeding further, the learned Labour Court heard both the parties with regard to fairness of the inquiry, and it was held that the inquiry was not conducted in fair manner, yet another opportunity was granted to the Corporation to prove the charges before the learned Court below. Although, there was no consistent evidence led by the Corporation holding the petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him, yet only on the basis of non-reliable evidence, the learned Court below came to the conclusion that the penalty of dismissal was rightly imposed by the disciplinary authority. 4. It has been submitted that the witnesses produced on behalf of the respondent-Corporation utterly failed to prove that the petitioner deliberately did not issue ticket to them. Rather, it has come on record that all the 16 passengers have paid the fare with penalty, which shows that earlier no fare were paid by the passengers, and only on interference of inspection team, first time they paid the fare. 5. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the passengers, in respect of whom the charges were leveled against the petitioner, were not produced before the learned Court below and only on the basis of evidence [2025:RJ-JP:37416] (3 of 4) [CW-9754/2013] of one Sh. Prahlad Pareek, the learned Court below has erroneously assumed that the petitioner was guilty of charges. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and defended the award dated 07.12.2012. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was granted full opportunity of hearing before the Labour court to defend the charges, yet he has utterly failed to put forward any legitimate defence, whereas the respondent- Corporation produced consistent evidence to show that the petitioner has committed serious misconduct of carrying 16 passengers without ticket. 7. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that by doing so, the petitioner intended to cause not only financial loss to the Corporation but has also adversely affected the reputation of the Corporation. It has further been submitted that carrying with passengers without ticket, despite recovery of fare from them, amounts to embezzlement, for which penalty of dismissal of services is the appropriate remedy. Hence, no error has been committed by the learned Court below in answering the reference. 8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the both the parties and perused the record. 9. It is a settled proposition of law that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the award of the Labour Court is extremely limited. Petitioner has utterly failed to point out any perversity or material, illegality or irregularity in the award dated 07.12.2012. The evidence led before the Labour Court cannot be re-appreciated as an Appellate [2025:RJ-JP:37416] (4 of 4) [CW-9754/2013] Authority by this Court. Petitioner was granted full opportunity to defend the charges, but he failed to place any legitimate evidence to support his defence. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr. Vs. Gopal Shukla & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.2038/2012), decided on 01.09.2015 dealt with a similar case where the Conductor had allowed 25 passengers to travel without ticket and has observed that such conduct of Conductor has sustained loss to the Corporation and no punishment less than penalty of dismissal from services was warranted under such circumstances. 11. In the light of above discussion, there is no merit and substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/Jatin/52