1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3835/1995. : : Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Shri Hetram & Anr. : : Date of Order 30.7.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr. M. K. Verma for the petitioner. Mr. N. K. Bhatt for the respondent No.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by RSRTC challenging the award dated 18.8.1994 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal by the aforesaid award has answered the reference of two penalty orders respectively dated 17.2.1994 & 18.2.1985 by which two grade increments and one grade increment with cumulative effect was withheld from the salary of respondent-workman after disciplinary enquiry. 3. Shri M. K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that with regard to both penalty orders 2 the Tribunal has held that enquiry was not valid and proper and respondent was not afforded opportunity to defend himself and he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the complainants. Learned counsel referring to reply to the statements submitted that petitioner had requested in the concluding part of the reply that in case enquiry is held unfair and unreasonable, petitioner should be given opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal itself to prove the charges. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Amrit Vanaspati Company Ltd. Vs. Khemchand & Anr. : 2006 (93) SC, 2739 and argued that Tribunal when finally concluded that principles of natural justice was not followed with and the respondent was not given opportunity to cross-examine the complainants in both the enquiries, it should have, instead of deciding the matter on merits, given opportunity to management to produce evidence before it. 4. Shri N. K. Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent-workman opposed the writ petition and submitted that the plea to the effect that enquiry has been held unfair, the management should be given opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal to prove the charges, 3 was mechanically raised, but such a plea was never pressed before the Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that it is an old matter and at this stage, remand of the matter to the Tribunal to give opportunity to the management to lead the evidence may not be proper especially when the respondent- workman has either retired or is on the verge of retirement. It is submitted that even otherwise charges, on both the counts were not proved and this fact can be ascertained by summoning the original record of Tribunal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the fact that petitioner-management contested the claim of respondent- workman on its merit, cannot a reason not to adhere to the law even now. This is not such a case where in consideration of fact the respondent has retired or is going to retire soon, the relief can be moulded. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.8.1994 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for giving opportunity to petitioner to adduce evidence. The petitioner-management shall not be granted more than six months to adduce all its evidence and same period of six months thereafter would be 4 granted to the workman and within three months thereafter final award shall be passed by the Tribunal. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.8.2009 and the Tribunal shall proceed with case on certified copy of this judgment being produced before it by either of them. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.H/ 3.