SBCWP856/1998 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.856/1998 Moola Ram Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others Date of Order ::: 25.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Ms. Jyoti Paliwal for Shri Rajeev Surana, Counsel for petitioner Shri Mukesh Verma, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Moola Ram against order dated 13.04.1994 of Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, by which application of respondent under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act') has been allowed. Learned counsel for respondent, at the outset, informed the court that petitioner Moola Ram in fact approached the appropriate Government and at his instance a regular industrial dispute was referred to Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, which was decided against him by Award dated 08.10.1996, however, the Award was rendered singularly on the basis of order impugned in the present writ petition by which SBCWP856/1998 // 2 // application of respondent under Section 33(2) (b) of the ID Act was allowed and removal of petitioner was approved. This Court allowed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5345/1996 filed by petitioner by judgment dated 31.08.2009 and remanded the matter back to Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, for deciding it afresh on merits. Ms. Jyoti Paliwal, brief holder of Shri Rajeev Surana, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that requirements of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act were not followed; neither was petitioner supplied copy of order of removal nor was he paid complete one month's salary as envisaged in that provision and that respondent also did not simultaneously move application for approval. The application was made two days after the date of his removal. It was contended that the Industrial Tribunal in Para 3 of impugned order has categorically noticed the arguments of petitioner that his pay was liable to be revised in terms of revised pay scale rules with effect from 1st September, 1988 and that petitioner had submitted his option for that purpose, but the pay was not revised. Had the pay of petitioner been revised, he would have received salary in basic pay of Rs.1120/- SBCWP856/1998 // 3 // as on 01.09.1988, whereas it was respondent, who wrongly calculated petitioner's pay and by that his basic pay as on 01.09.1988 was fixed at Rs.990. Learned counsel submitted that if on correct pay the emoluments payable as one month's salary would have been computed, the same would have come to Rs.1941.20p., whereas respondent paid him only Rs.1690/-. Besides the option, petitioner was entitled to be paid Rs.240/- per month as house rent allowance but the respondent calculated the same at the rate of Rs.120/- per month. Learned counsel for respondent opposed writ petition and submitted that as per evidence produced by respondent the pay of petitioner was rightly calculated on the basis of his basic pay being Rs.990/- as on 01.09.1988. Regarding house rent allowance, learned counsel for respondent submitted that at the time of removal of service, petitioner was being paid a sum of Rs.130/- per month as house rent allowance. Petitioner could not prove that he would have ever submitted an application or receipt of that, so as to claim revised house rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month. Learned counsel submitted that impugned order does not warrant any interference of this SBCWP856/1998 // 4 // Court and the writ petition be therefore dismissed. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing material on record, I find that although the Tribunal has noticed the argument but it dealt with only one of the arguments i.e. with regard to revision of house rent allowance. It has noticed that on transfer of petitioner to Ajmer, he became entitled to enhanced house rent allowance but for that purpose he was required to prove as to on which basis he made such claim and whether produced receipt of house rent. Since petitioner failed to prove it, that aspect the matter requires consideration by the Tribunal itself and matter needs to be remanded back. On the question of option submitted by petitioner, however no finding has been given by Tribunal except showing that two witnesses produced by respondent, on the basis of their record available, asserted that pay of petitioner was fixed at Rs.990/- on 01.09.1988 and on that basis he was paid increments and the emoluments were computed on the date of his removal. No finding has been rendered as to any such option, as alleged by petitioner, was given by him or that such option was accepted SBCWP856/1998 // 5 // or not. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal for deciding it afresh. In view of aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is accordingly allowed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//