1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1090/07 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Keshav Dev & Anr. Date of order : 18/8/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri M.K. Verma for the petitioner. ****** This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur dated 18.1.2005 and 28.6.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.1.05 on the premise that the learned Tribunal could not hold the domestic enquiry to be unfair, merely on the premise that the Presenting Officer was not appointed to represent the management before the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel argued that no ground of this nature was raised by the respondent- workman in the reply filed to the application under Section 33-2(C) and therefore the learned Tribunal could not accept such a plea which was not raised and on that basis hold the domestic enquiry to be unfair. Learned counsel also in this 2 connection referred to Annexure-1, the order of removal which was passed subject to approval by the Industrial Tribunal and argued that in that order, it was clearly stated that Tej Singh, Administrative Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the disciplinary authority. Since the first order of the Tribunal dated 18.1.05 was itself illegal, the consequent order dated 28.6.05 whereby the petitioner management was required to pay to the respondent workman subsistence allowance pending proceedings before the learned Tribunal would also liable to be held bad in law and consequently, quashed and set aside. It was argued that when the relationship of master and servant got snapped and there is no question of granting subsistence allowance. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to show as to who was appointed as Presenting Officer on behalf of the Corporation in the departmental enquiry and by which order, but he could not point out from the pleadings any such assertion. When the petitioner is not in a position to 3 dispute this fact, it becomes a question of fact that no one was appointed as Presenting Officer. The reasoning given by the Tribunal that the Enquiry Officer himself conducted the enquiry on behalf of the management and therefore he could not be expected to have acted in a fair and impartial manner, has to be therefore accepted. The Tribunal has clearly held that the enuqiry was thus held contrary to the principles of natural justice. Since the enquiry held by the petitioner was held to be unfair, the Industrial Tribunal permitted them to lead evidence to justify the order impugned. Such order directing them to pay subsistence allowance also therefore cannot be held to be contrary to law. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, the Tribunal is impressed upon to expedite the proceedings. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/