[2026:RJ-JP:2169] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10281/2011 Dy. General Manager (Admn.) & Authorized Disciplinary Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Banwari Lal Sharma S/o Shri Jagannath by post Conductor, R/o Village & Post Kalawas, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. 2. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendar Meel For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 19/01/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, against order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947') has been dismissed and consequently approval has not been granted in respect of penalty of dismissal of respondent-workman. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation submits that on account committing grave misconduct, one charge-sheet dated 27.03.1991 was issued to the respondent-workman. After issuance of charge-sheet, enquiry was conducted in accordance with Rules and after analysis of record, Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty and, thereafter, Disciplinary Authority passed order of penalty for dismissing the respondent-workman from services vide order dated 21.12.2000. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation further submits that after making necessary compliance of Section 33(2) [2026:RJ-JP:2169] (2 of 5) [CW-10281/2011] (b) of the Act of 1947 i.e. after making due payment and serving the order upon the respondent-workman, an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 was filed by the petitioner- Corporation before the Industrial Tribunal for seeking approval of the dismissal order dated 21.12.2000. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation also submits that learned Tribunal at the preliminary stage heard both the counsels on the question of fairness of the enquiry, however, the enquiry conducted by the petitioner-Corporation was not found proper and fair. Hence, opportunity was given to the petitioner- Corporation to prove the charges before the learned Tribunal by producing their evidence. He further submits that by misappreciation of evidence and giving perverse finding, it has been held that the petitioner-Corporation could not prove the charges against the petitioner-Corporation and, therefore, approval was not granted and the application under Section 33(2) (b) of the Act of 1947 was dismissed vide order dated 28.12.2010. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation further submits that while passing order dated 28.12.2010, learned Tribunal has committed serious error of law and jurisdiction and has examined the evidence in the capacity of Appellate Authority, whereas no such scope of interference is there with learned Tribunal. He also submits that fall out of order dated 28.12.2010 would be that a person who has committed serious misconduct of carrying passengers without ticket shall have to be reinstated by the petitioner-Corporation, which would be perpetuating an illegality to give benefits to a person who is not otherwise entitled. [2026:RJ-JP:2169] (3 of 5) [CW-10281/2011] 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman opposes the writ petition and defended order dated 28.12.2010. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has meticulously examined the evidence led by the petitioner-Corporation for which it has got jurisdiction as the enquiry earlier carried out by the petitioner- Corporation has been held to be unfair by the learned Tribunal and such order of unfairness was not challenged by the petitioner- Corporation. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman also submits that thus under the circumstances, where opportunity was granted to the petitioner-Corporation to prove charges before the learned Tribunal by producing evidence, scope of appreciation available with the learned Tribunal is quite wide and only under the circumstances, where the employer succeeds in establishing the charges on the basis of evidence, approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 can be granted. In the instant case, there is definite and reasoned findings that the petitioner- Corporation has utterly failed to prove the charges from the evidence on record. Hence, no illegality whatsoever has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-Corporation. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Bare perusal of order dated 28.12.2010 would make it clear that although the allegations with regard to carrying passengers without ticket was levelled against the respondent- workman while serving charge-sheet upon him, however, while availing the opportunity to prove charges by leading evidence, [2026:RJ-JP:2169] (4 of 5) [CW-10281/2011] petitioner-Corporation was under an obligation to place all the documents including copies of way-bill before the learned Tribunal to show that remark of ‘carrying passengers without ticket’ was put by the inspection team. However, no such way-bill was admittedly placed before the learned Tribunal by the petitioner- Corporation. Even the statements of passengers were not taken and in-charge of inspection team, Sh. Jagdish Narayan Sharma, was also not produced as a witness during evidence. Learned Tribunal has also discussed that from examination of the facts and evidence, even the calculation of passengers on the relevant day does not match with the record of the petitioner-Corporation. It was alleged on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that at the time of inspection, driver of the bus was present and he also tendered his consent, however, even the driver was not produced for examination before the learned Tribunal. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any error or mistake in the conclusion drawn by learned Tribunal that the petitioner- Corporation has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondent-workman. Under these circumstances, the dismissal order dated 21.12.2000 passed against the respondent- workman does not deserves to be approved by learned Tribunal while exercising powers under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. This Court is mindful by the fact that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of interference is quite limited. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, where the petitioner-Corporation has utterly failed to point out any perversity or manifest illegality in the impugned order, no interference is [2026:RJ-JP:2169] (5 of 5) [CW-10281/2011] called for and the writ petition filed by the petitioner-Corporation, is hereby, dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/33