Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Promotion Does Not Exist Under Repealed Rules Following Policy Restructuring: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Affirms Labour Court’s Altered Punishment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, September 14, 2023: The Supreme Court of India today dismissed an appeal filed by the Chief Manager of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) against a respondent who had passed away. The case had been ongoing for several years, involving an RSRTC employee who had initially been dismissed from service for operating a bus unauthorizedly.

Application for Substitution Allowed

The court began by allowing an application for substitution due to the passing away of both the original employee and his spouse, who had taken up the case after his demise. The delay in filing the application for substitution was also condoned by the court.

 Labour Court’s Decision Upheld

The Labour Court had earlier altered the punishment of the employee from dismissal from service to withholding one year’s salary with a non-cumulative effect. This decision was upheld by the High Court and has now been affirmed by the Supreme Court as well. The appellant had argued that the Labour Court’s decision should not stand as a writ petition filed earlier had been dismissed. However, the Court pointed out that the dismissal of the writ petition did not prevent the filing of an industrial dispute.

 No Ground for Interference

The apex court ruled that it found no ground for interfering with the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal, directing parties to bear their own costs.

The order was passed by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia. Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj represented the appellant, and Mr. Merusagar Samantaray represented the respondent.

This decision marks a significant ruling in the realm of industrial disputes, particularly regarding the scope and limitations in successive rounds of litigation.

Date of Decision: September 14, 2023

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs CHETAN DEVI (DEAD)               

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/The_Chief_Manager_Rajasthan_vs_Chetan_Devi_14_September_20231.pdf"]         

Latest Legal News