CW 7724/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.7724/2006 Chief Manager RSRTC Jodhpur Versus Razzak Khan & Indl. Tribunal, Jaipur. Date of Order ::: 06/02/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Dharmendra Pareek for Mr. JM Saxena, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (“RSRTC”) assailing order dt.01/06/06 (Ann.6) in Misc.IT/85/2000 whereby Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur rejected application filed by petitioner (RSRTC) U/S 33(2)(B) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”). Respondent-workman while holding post of Vehicle Driver was served with charge sheet vide memo dt.19/12/98 imputing allegation that two passengers with luggage of 90 kgs were found without its fare tickets while vehicle No.5125 was being inspected on 28/09/98 though he was on duty as its Driver, but the conductor informed the inspecting team that luggage & passengers belonged to relatives of vehicle driver. After holding inquiry, workman was held guilty and inflicted with penalty of removal from service vide order dt.22/05/2000 (Ann.1) and due to pendency of CW 7724/06 //2// industrial dispute, petitioner Corporation filed application seeking permission U/s 33(2)(b) of the Act. After taking note of material on record, the learned Tribunal held the domestic inquiry to be unfair vide order dt.20/09/04 and after examining the merits, observed that respondent-workman was charged only on the premise that conductor of the vehicle had informed of two passengers being found without fare tickets alongwith luggage of 90 kgs belonging to driver (workman) but in course of inquiry, conductor of the vehicle was not produced as witness – in absence whereof, inference could not be drawn that inspection note prepared by the Team in any manner co-relates to the alleged misconduct of the vehicle driver (workman) and there was no other evidence available on record by which respondent workman could be booked of allegations imputed against him; inasmuch as conductor of the vehicle was not even charged with allegations, if at all he had committed alleged misconduct alongwith driver of vehicle. Based on aforesaid finding recorded under order impugned, learned Tribunal declined to grant permission to petitioner (RSRTC) and rejected its application filed U/s 33(2)(b) of the Act. I have considered contention of Counsel for petitioner and examined material on record. CW 7724/06 //3// This Court does not find any manifest error of law which may call for interference in the finding recorded by learned Tribunal under order impugned. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/7724CW06-6FbID.doc