Court holds in the negative, affirming Rajasthan High Court precedents (Premkumari & Ors. and Sukhbhir Singh); binds tribunals under Article 227; bars posthumous evidence once inquiry is declared unfair.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CW/7966/2024 of CHIEF MANAGER, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs SHYAMLAL BAKSHI DRIVER S/O SHRI SAMAY SINGH |
| CNR | RJHC020401342024 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL |
| Court | High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Labour Law) |
| Questions of Law | Whether, after a departmental inquiry is held unfair and unreasonable and the workman dies during proceedings, the employer may still lead evidence to prove the charge under Section 33(2)(b)? |
| Ratio Decidendi | Once a domestic inquiry is declared unfair and unreasonable and the workman expires during its pendency, Section 33(2)(b) bars the employer from leading any further evidence to prove the charges. The High Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 227, holding that reliance on Premkumari & Ors. (1995 (70) FLR 244) and RSRTC v. Sukhbhir Singh (2011 (130) FLR 311) dictates that posthumous evidence is impermissible. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities | Relied on established Rajasthan High Court precedents confirming that unfair domestic inquiries and subsequent death of workman preclude proof of charges. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Industrial Tribunal rejected the employer’s Section 33(2)(b) application after declaring the departmental inquiry unfair and noting the workman’s death; petitioner did not dispute those findings. |
| Citations | [2025:RJ-JP:33879] |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court reaffirms that an employer cannot introduce fresh evidence once an inquiry is held unfair and the workman dies during pendency.
- Affirms that Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act bars posthumous proof of charges.
- Confirms continued binding force of Premkumari & Ors. and Sukhbhir Singh on tribunals under Article 227 petitions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Industrial Tribunal found the departmental inquiry unfair and unreasonable and noted the workman’s death during pendency.
- It dismissed the employer’s application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, 1947.
- The High Court agreed that once unfairness is established and the employee dies, no further evidence can be led.
- Reliance was placed on Rajasthan High Court precedents: Premkumari & Ors. and Sukhbhir Singh.
- Writ petition under Article 227 was dismissed for lack of any disputable legal proposition.
Arguments by the Parties
No distinct submissions recorded; petitioner did not dispute the principle that posthumous evidence is barred once inquiry is unfair and workman dies.
Factual Background
Chief Manager, RSRTC Alwar Depot, filed a writ under Article 227 challenging the Industrial Tribunal’s order dated 13-02-2024. The Tribunal had dismissed the employer’s application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the grounds that the departmental inquiry was already held unfair and unreasonable and that the workman died during its pendency. The petitioner did not contest those findings. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 26-08-2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 33(2)(b), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: once a domestic inquiry is declared unfair/unreasonable and the workman expires while the inquiry or related proceedings are pending, the employer is prohibited from leading any further evidence to prove the misconduct.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7966/2024, [2025:RJ-JP:33879]
- Smt. Premkumari & Ors. v. C.I.T., 1995 (70) F.L.R. 244 (Raj. HC)
- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Sukhbhir Singh, 2011 (130) F.L.R. 311 (Raj. HC)