Supreme Court Grants 2L Compensation To RSRTC Conductor Dismissed From Service Over Incorrect Punching Of Tickets
The Supreme Court granted compensation of Rs 2 lakh to a conductor who worked with Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation for 3 years and was dismissed from service in the year 1982 on account of incorrect punching of tickets. The Apex Court noted that he must have attained the age of superannuation considering the time gap.
The workman had approached the Apex Court impugning the judgment of the High Court whereby the second appeal filed by the respondents was allowed setting aside the concurrent judgment and decree of the courts below.
The Division Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal asserted, “At present, considering the time gap ever since he was appointed, he must have attained the age of superannuation.”
AOR Abhishek Gupta represented the Appellant while Advocate BS Rajesh Agrajit represented the Respondent.
The appellant in this case was appointed as a conductor with the respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation in 1979 but was dismissed from service in 1982 on account of incorrect punching of tickets on one occasion and on three occasions, passengers were found travelling without tickets when the appellant was on duty. In appeal, the order of dismissal was upheld.
Challenging the order of dismissal, the appellant filed a civil suit. The Trial Court held that the dismissal of the appellant was illegal as he was not granted fair opportunity of hearing. The judgment and the decree of the Trial Court were challenged by the respondents by filing an appeal. The same was upheld by the First Appellate Court. Thereafter the respondents preferred a second appeal which was allowed on the ground that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as appellant should have invoked the jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This judgment has been challenged before the Apex Court.
The appellant claimed that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the lis as there was complete violation of the principles of natural justice while awarding punishment. On the other hand, the respondents contended that Civil Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the lis as the proper remedy for the appellant was under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Bench noticed that the appellant served the respondent-Corporation for about 3 years. It was further observed that considering the time gap ever since he was appointed, he must have attained the age of superannuation.
“In our opinion, the ends of justice will be met if the appellant is awarded a lump sum amount of compensation of ₹2,00,000/- instead of going into the merits of controversy either deciding jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the lis or relegating the appellant to seek relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947”, it held.
Thus, the Bench disposed of the petition by awarding a compensation of Rs 2,00,000.
Cause Title: Bastiram v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 934]
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Abhishek Gupta
Respondents: Advocates BS Rajesh Agrajit,Aakash Sharma, Priya Nagar, AOR Shyamal Kumar
