Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
R S R T C Jaipur vs Ram Babu Gupta on 15 July, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:25576]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 416/2007
1. R S R T C through Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur
2. General Manager, R S R T C, Depot Dausa, Dausa
3. Executive Director (Transport) R S R T C, Jaipur
----Appellants-Defendants
Versus
Ram Babu Gupta son of Shri Radha Mohan Gupta, Age-Major, at
present, R S R T C, Depot Dausa, Resdient of Dodhdya Mohalla,
Dausa (Rajasthan)
----Respondent-Plaintiff
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.K. Singhi, Senior Adv,. assisted
by Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv. on behalf of
Mr. Satish Khandal, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment 15/07/2025
This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants-
defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and
decree dated 29.03.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge
No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in
civil regular appeal No. 15/2006, whereby the first appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants being time barred
which was filed against the judgment and decree dated
13.12.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) East, Jaipur
Metro, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 358/2002
(659/2001), by which the trial Court declared the punishment
order No. 116 dated 02.03.2001 & the order No. 1030 dated
03.05.2001 as null and void and the respondent-plaintiff (for short
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:56:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:25576] (2 of 5) [CSA-416/2007]
‘the plaintiff’) held entitled to get all financial and services benefits
which he could receive in the event said order would not have
been passed.
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for
declaration against the defendants mentioning therein that the
plaintiff was appointed as regular conductor in Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) on
03.12.1986. He was performing his duty efficiently but the
defendants on account of baseless allegations vide punishment
order No.116 dated 02.03.2001 forfeited the substance allowance
of the suspension period and withheld 3 annual increments with
cumulative effect. It was also mentioned that while conducting the
inquiry, principle of natural justice was not followed. So, the suit
filed by the plaintiff be decreed.
Defendants filed a counter claim and denied the averments
made in the plaint and stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff be
dismissed.
On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed
the following issues:-
“1- vk;k okni= ds rF;ksa ds ifjizs{; esa oknh ds
fo#) izfroknhx.k }kjk ikfjr n.Mkns’k dzekad 116
fnukad 2-3-2001 o vkns’k dzekad 1030 fnukad 3-5-
2001 xSjdkuwuh] voS/kkfud] U;kf;d uSlfxZd
fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gksus ls izHkko ‘kwU; gS\2- vk;k oknh og leLr vkfFkZd o lsok ykHk izkIr
djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] tks mDr vkns’k ikfjr ugha
gksrk rks izkIr djrk\(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:56:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:25576] (3 of 5) [CSA-416/2007]3- vuqrks”k?”
To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1-
Rambabu Gupta and exhibited certain documents. The defendants
also got examined DW-1- Mohammed Jameer Khan and exhibited
certain documents.
After hearing both the parties, the trial Court vide judgment
and decree dated 13.12.2005 while decreeing the suit filed by the
plaintiff, declared the punishment order No.116 dated 02.03.2001
and the order No.1030 dated 03.05.2001 as null and void and the
plaintiff held entitled to get all financial and services benefits
which he could receive in the event said order would not have
been passed.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated
13.12.2005, the defendants filed an appeal before the first
appellate court and the first appellate Court vide judgment and
decree dated 29.03.2007 dismissed the appeal filed by the
defendants on account of delay.
The present appeal was admitted on 18.07.2008 on the
following substantial question of Law:-
“As to whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction in
the matters of Industrial Disputes?”
Learned senior counsel for the defendants submits that the
case of the plaintiff pertains to Industrial Disputes, so the civil
court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He further submits that
while conducting the inquiry against the plaintiff, proper
opportunity of hearing was granted to him and principle of natural
justice was not violated. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:56:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:25576] (4 of 5) [CSA-416/2007]
allowed and the judgments and decree passed by the trial court as
well as the first appellate court be set-aside and the suit filed by
the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by jurisdiction.
Learned senior counsel for the defendants has placed
reliance upon the judgment passed by this court in the case of
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs.
Bhanwar Lal Sharma reported in 2023:RJ-JP:40817.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned senior counsel for the defendants and
submitted that the trial court while decreeing the suit filed by the
plaintiff rightly considered that while conducting the inquiry, no
proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the plaintiff. So the
trial court rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the
appellate court rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the
defendants being time barred.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the
Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa reported in 2009 4 SCC
299 it has been held that the civil suit is maintainable if principle
of natural justice is violated. So, the appeal filed by the
defendants be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for
the defendants, learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the
impugned judgments.
It is an admitted position that while conducting the inquiry
against the plaintiff, no proper opportunity of hearing was granted
to him. So, the principle of natural justice was violated and as per
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:56:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:25576] (5 of 5) [CSA-416/2007]
the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa
(Supra), civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. So, the
present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed,
which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/108
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:56:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)