[2026:RJ-JP:16324] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2723/2020 1. Smt. Saroj Devi Wife Of Late Shri Brij Bhushan Sharma (Ex- Conductor, Kota Depot), Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Brahman, R/o Near Falsa Wala Hanumanji, Plot No.J-2, Janta Colony, Behind P.G. College, Dausa (Raj.). 2. Atul Kumar S/o Late Shri Brij Bhushan Sharma, By Caste Brahman, R/o Near Falsa Wala Hanumanji, Plot No.J-2, Janta Colony, Behind P.G. College, Dausa (Raj.). 3. Anoop Kumar S/o Late Shri Brij Bhushan Sharma, By Caste Brahman, R/o Near Falsa Wala Hanumanji, Plot No.J-2, Janta Colony, Behind P.G. College, Dausa (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus Chief Manager, Kota Depot/ Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Kota (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rewarmal Bairwa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 17/04/2026 1. On the request and with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the present writ petition is taken up and heard for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the dismissal of the claim filed by the petitioner by way of a complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’). 3. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947, raising the issue of contravention of the requirement [2026:RJ-JP:16324] (2 of 6) [CW-2723/2020] under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947 while terminating the petitioner for the alleged misconduct of allowing seven passengers to travel without tickets. The petitioner was terminated on the ground of the proven charge of allowing seven passengers to travel in the bus without tickets. While moving the complaint under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947, the petitioner raised an objection with regard to the non-compliance of Section 33(2) of the Act of 1947 while terminating the petitioner on the proved charge of allowing seven passengers without tickets. 4. The contravention is alleged on the ground that the Industrial Dispute No. I.T.R. 102/2001 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal between the Rajasthan Transport Workers Union and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC). The dispute was relating to the authority of the employer to recover financial punishment after retirement by ordering deduction of such amount from the gratuity of a retired employee. 5. Initially, an objection was raised by the respondents herein with regard to the maintainability of complaint under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947 on the ground that the reference which was pending was not relating to the service conditions of an existing workman and was in respect of a retired workman. 6. The Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the petition was maintainable and proceeded to decide on merits. While dismissing the complaint of the petitioner, the Tribunal went beyond the scope of adjudication of complaint under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was an ample evidence to show that misconduct was proved, which means the Tribunal went on to decide the merits of [2026:RJ-JP:16324] (3 of 6) [CW-2723/2020] the termination order instead of confining itself to whether the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1947 apply to the complainant/workman and, if applicable, whether there was any non-compliance with the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1947. 6A. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 33 of the Act of 1947, which reads as under: “[33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.—(1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before [an arbitrator or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall,— (a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute [or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman],— (a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or [2026:RJ-JP:16324] (4 of 6) [CW-2723/2020] (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, or discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman: Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer. (3) XXXXXX (4) XXXXXX (5) XXXXXX ” 7. A reading of Section 33(1) of the Act of 1947 shows that if any action is contemplated altering the service conditions or relating to misconduct connected with an existing dispute before the Tribunal, no action shall be taken against the workman without obtaining permission from the authority before which the proceedings are pending. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 is an exception to Section 33(1); it relates to any alteration of conditions or misconduct not connected with the dispute pending before the learned Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal or any other authority. The dispute which was under reference related to service conditions which are enabling the employer to deduct amount from the gratuity of retired employees with regard to any punishment order passed in monetary terms. 8. A similar issue was raised by another set of employees/workmen of the APS with regard to the same reference. This Court, vide order dated 04.11.2015, passed an order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6055/2015 titled as The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. Mohan Singh Baghala. The relevant part of the order dated 04.11.2015 (supra) reads as follows: [2026:RJ-JP:16324] (5 of 6) [CW-2723/2020] “The perusal of terms of the reference does not reveal that respondent is a concerned workman. The dispute raised therein pertains to the claim of gratuity by the retired employees against whom order for stoppage of gratuity was passed as a measure of punishment. The Tribunal has committed a grave illegality in holding that pending reference would not be limited to those who have raised it but would be applied to the respondent-employee herein also. The respondent-workman is presently in service and not a retired employee and not subjected to stoppage of gratuity. In fact, therein the retired employees were denied benefit of gratuity by passing order of punishment after their retirement. Whether action of stoppage of gratuity is valid or not would be decided by the Tribunal in respect to few retired employees only. The respondent is not a concerned workman therein so as to require approval of the order of punishment by filing an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947.Section 33(2)(b) applies when pending dispute is concerned to the workman but therein misconduct committed by him is not connected with the dispute. It is true that misconduct committed by the respondent is not connected with the dispute pending before the Industrial Tribunal but at the same time, respondent-employee is not the concerned workman as required for application of Section 33(2)(a) of the Act of 1947. The words “concerned workman” used under Section 33(2) are of significance but has not been appreciated by the Tribunal.” 9. A reading of the above findings clearly indicates that the matter which was sub judice under the reference was relating to the service conditions of retired employees and not the service conditions of workmen so as to attract the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1947. These findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court were also affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this [2026:RJ-JP:16324] (6 of 6) [CW-2723/2020] Court. The same is reflected from the order impugned in the present writ petition. 10. In view of such findings, this Court cannot again go into the validity of such findings in the present writ petition. However, this Court finds that the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, went beyond its jurisdiction in deciding the merits of termination. The Tribunal is not supposed to decide the merits of the punishment order, which is beyond its scope. The merits of such punishment can only be decided in independent proceedings by raising an industrial dispute. The dispute was relating only to contravention of Section 33 of the Act of 1947; the Tribunal was required to confine itself to examining whether such contravention was made out or not, and not beyond that. Therefore, the findings rendered by the Tribunal touching upon the merits of the punishment order are without jurisdiction and the same are set aside. 11. The aforesaid findings shall not come in the way of the petitioner’s right to challenge such proceedings before the appropriate forum. 12. In view of the above, the present writ petition is partly allowed. 13. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand dispose of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 37-PoonamS/-