CWP 10492/2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No.10492/2010 Executive Manager and Authorized Disciplinary Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corportaion Vs. Shri Isab khan & anr. DATE OF ORDER : 20/08/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Manoj Goyal, for petitioner. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-corporation assailing the order dt. 20/01/2010 whereby the application filed by the petitioner-corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been rejected by the learned Tribunal. It has been alleged in the petition and also noticed by learned Tribunal that the respondent- workman herein (deceased), while working as Conductor, was served with a charge sheet on 06/12/1994 in which two charges were levelled against him and both the allegations were found to be proved in the course of enquiry and based thereon he was removed from service vide order dt.25/07/1996 but since there was an industrial dispute pending, as such, application was filed by the petitioner seeking permission from the Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947. However, while recording finding in regard to the date of the order-sheets of the departmental CWP 10492/2010 [2] enquiry in Para No. 4 of its order, it has been observed by the learned Tribunal that it appears that adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent- workman (deceased) and the domestic enquiry was held to be unfair and accordingly the application filed by the petitioner-corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947 seeking approval has been rejected. It has come on record that during pendency of the proceedings, the respondent-workman died on 01/10/2009 and his legal heirs contested the matter thereafter. Counsel for petitioner submits that the finding, which has been recorded in regard to the order sheets while holding that adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent-workman, is totally perverse and is not supported by available material on record and thus the finding recorded holding the domestic enquiry unfair is perverse and deserves to be set aside. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and also perused the order impugned. Since the finding of fact has been arrived at by the Tribunal in Para No. 4 while holding that adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent-workman and there is no contrary material available on record CWP 10492/2010 [3] which can substantiate the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and further, taking note of the fact that the workman died during pendency of the proceedings on 01/10/2009, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the Tribunal while passing the order impugned dt.20/01/2010 which may call for interference. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu-10492-CW-2010-final.doc