[2026:RJ-JP:424] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6623/2006 Shri B.R. Jyani, Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Kota Depot. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Nathu Lal Sharma Son of Shri Purshottam, Driver Kota Depot, Resident of Village Post Natwada, Via Niwai, District Tonk. 2. Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7743/2007 Shri Nathu LaL Sharma Son of Shri Purshottam Sharma, aged about 48 years, Resident of Village Post Natwada, Via Niwai, District Tonk. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporatin, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporatin, Kota Depot, Kota. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13747/2018 Nathu LaL Sharma Son of Purshottam Sharma, aged about 60 years, Resident of Village Post Natwada, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through the Chairman Cum Managing Director, Chomu House, Pariwahan Marg, Jaipur. 2. The Joint General Manager (Finance), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, Pariwahan Marg, Jaipur. [2026:RJ-JP:424] (2 of 8) [CW-6623/2006] 3. Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, Pariwahan Marg, Jaipur. 4. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, Pariwahan Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with Mr. Ashindra Gautam, Mr. Anukram Singh and Mr. Shubham Arora Mr. S.K. Panwar Mr. Rajpal Dhankhar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/01/2026 1. So far as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6623/2006 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7743/2007 are concerned, these petitions have arisen out of order dated 23.01.2006, whereby application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1947') passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur has been dismissed. Employer- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the order dated 23.01.2006 and the workman, on the contrary, filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7743/2007 for implementation of order dated 23.01.2006 and with a prayer to reinstate him in service in compliance of aforesaid order. 2. Third writ petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13747/2018 has been filed by the petitioner-workman with the grievance that although during the pendency of the above writ [2026:RJ-JP:424] (3 of 8) [CW-6623/2006] petitions, the petitioner, on attaining age of superannuation had retired, yet benefit of GPF was not granted to him. 3. While challenging the order dated 23.01.2006, learned counsel for RSRTC has submitted that on account of grave misconduct committed by the petitioner with regard to carrying as many as 40 passengers without ticket, charge-sheet dated 03.05.1991 was served upon the workman. Pursuant to such charge-sheet, domestic enquiry was conducted and after providing fair opportunity of hearing to the delinquent workman, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment dated 02.02.1993, whereby the workman was dismissed from service. After passing order of dismissal and after making compliance of the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 with regard to serving the copy of the order as well as of making necessary payment to the workman, an application for seeking approval of the Labour Court was moved by the Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. 4. It was submitted that learned Industrial Tribunal, at the first instance, heard both the parties on the question of fairness of the enquiry and after hearing both the parties, the enquiry was held to be unfair and improper, therefore, opportunity was granted to the petitioner-Corporation to prove the charges levelled against the workman before the Industrial Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although consistent oral as well as documentary evidence was led by the petitioner-Corporation, yet by giving perverse and irrational findings, the evidence led by the petitioner was not believed upon by the Industrial Tribunal and the application under Section 33(2) [2026:RJ-JP:424] (4 of 8) [CW-6623/2006] (b) of the Act of 1947 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2006. Learned counsel further submits that the Corporation examined two witnesses namely; Subhash Chandra Sharma and Radhey Shyam Meena in support of allegations levelled against the workman in the charges and also produced the relevant log-sheet having signatures of driver of the bus also. He submitted that bare perusal of the statements of the witnesses as well as documentary evidence would make it clear that the Corporation has categorically proved the charges levelled against the delinquent workman in the charge-sheet, yet by raising unfounded doubts, the evidence of the Corporation was rejected. It is submitted that the Industrial Tribunal cannot act as disciplinary authority and on the basis of uncalled for suspicion the earlier order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be substituted. In view of aforesaid submissions, prayer was made to quash order dated 23.01.2006. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the delinquent workman submitted that once the enquiry conducted by the employer has been held to be unfair by the Industrial Tribunal, employer was under legal obligation to prove the charges before the Industrial Tribunal so as to seek approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 23.01.2006 has been passed by learned Tribunal after meticulously examining the facts of the case, material as well as evidence on record and law prevailing at the relevant time. He submits that categorical findings have been given by learned Tribunal to show that the evidence led by the Corporation was totally scattered and was not consistent. Merely, levelling allegations are not enough for [2026:RJ-JP:424] (5 of 8) [CW-6623/2006] invoking the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 for seeking approval, hence, learned Tribunal, for want of proper evidence, has committed no mistake in dismissing the application filed by the Corporation. 7. Learned counsel for the workman further submits that once the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 filed by the Corporation was rejected by the learned Tribunal, then Corporation had no other option except to reinstate the petitioner in service, but instead of doing so the petitioner was not granted benefit of order dated 23.01.2006. He further submits that although the petitioner was member of CPF, however, during the aforesaid period of enquiry and litigation, one scheme was lodged to grant options to in service employees for opting GPF scheme. Although, such option was also given by the petitioner, on being reinstated during the pendency of the above writ petitions, yet some delay has occurred in submitting such option, which in the facts and circumstances can be considered to be bona fide and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the benefits of GPF scheme. 8. Learned counsel appearing for Corporation in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13747/2018 opposed the prayer with regard to opting GPF scheme made by the workman and submitted that the scheme launched by the Corporation was explicitly clear, where the option was to be submitted within a time frame and since the petitioner failed to submit the option within the time prescribed, hence, benefit of GPF scheme cannot be granted by the petitioner. 9. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the workman submitted that till date neither payment under CPF scheme, nor [2026:RJ-JP:424] (6 of 8) [CW-6623/2006] benefits of under GPF scheme have been extended to the petitioner. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. So far as propriety and validity of order dated 23.01.2006 is concerned, it is an undisputed fact that the enquiry conducted by the employer-Corporation was held to be unfair by the learned Tribunal, therefore, the Corporation was required to prove the charges before the Tribunal by placing oral as well as documentary evidence before the Tribunal. 12. Bare reading of order dated 23.01.2006 would make it clear that while examining the statements given by the employer witnesses Subhash Chandra Sharma and Radhey Shyam Meena, the Tribunal gathered that there were apparent contradictions in the statements, which caused serious doubt over the story framed by the employer in the charge-sheet. In addition to above, log- sheet produced in documentary evidence was also examined by the Tribunal in which there were manifest interpolations and cuttings. Even the bus number was changed as well as time of departure of bus was also corrected by making corrections. Learned Tribunal has also observed that for proving the charges of the nature levelled in the charge-sheet in question, the evidence of driver of the bus, who was also an employee of the Corporation, was quite significant. In the instant case, although the remarks made on the log-sheet were said to have been signed by driver of the bus, yet the driver was not produced in evidence by the employer and no sufficient reason was assigned for withholding the driver from producing him as a witness. That apart, so many [2026:RJ-JP:424] (7 of 8) [CW-6623/2006] other contradictions in the evidence of employer have been duly recorded in order dated 23.01.2006. 13. It is settled proposition of law that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court and the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal can be interfered only in the limited circumstances, where the petitioner is able to show manifest and apparent perversity in the order impugned. In the instant case, the petitioner-Corporation has utterly failed to point out any manifest illegality or irregularity or even perversity in the order dated 23.01.2006, hence, the same is not required to be interfered with in the instant writ petition. 14. As it has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the above writ petitions, the petitioner was already reinstated back in service, therefore, no order is also required to be passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7743/2007 due to want of any surviving cause of action. 15. So far as claim of the workman with regard to benefit of GPF scheme is concerned, the only objection raised by the Corporation was that the option was not submitted within time. There is no objection on behalf of the respondents with regard to otherwise entitlement of the petitioner for getting the benefit of GPF scheme. In the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner has faced disciplinary inquiry and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 02.02.1993, he could have submitted his option for opting GPF scheme instead of CPF scheme only after reinstatement, therefore, delay if any, occurred [2026:RJ-JP:424] (8 of 8) [CW-6623/2006] in submitting option of GPF scheme can be condoned in the interest of justice. 16. In the light of foregoing discussions, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6623/2006 filed by RSRTC is hereby dismissed. As stated above, no order is required to be passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7743/2007 and same is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous. So far as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13747/2018 is concerned, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on option submitted by the petitioner for opting GPF scheme instead of CPF scheme within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in case, petitioner is otherwise entitled for benefit of GPF scheme (without raising any objection with regard to delay in submitting option), the necessary benefits shall be granted to the petitioner within a period of 30 days thereafter. Petitioner is also entitled for all the due benefits consequent upon dismissal of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6623/2006. 17. All the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /21-23