The High Court of Rajasthan severely criticized the State Government for failing to comply with a reinstatement order issued by the relevant Industrial Tribunal in 2019, calling the state’s conduct a “contumacious disregard for the rule of law.” The Court emphasized that the tribunal in question is not a mere administrative body but a quasi-judicial forum whose orders carry judicial effect and must be respected as binding. The Court observed that such orders cannot be treated as optional or advisory, but demand full compliance. The bench held that the state’s failure to implement the tribunal’s directive, combined with a belated attempt to raise fresh legal arguments before the High Court without first resorting to statutory remedies, amounted to unacceptable defiance of judicial discipline.
The case concerned a bus conductor, employed since 1982, whose services were terminated by the State following certain allegations. The conductor challenged the termination before the Industrial Tribunal. In 2019, the Tribunal annulled the removal order and directed reinstatement of the conductor. Despite this directive, the State did not act to reinstate him. Subsequently, the conductor approached the High Court, seeking enforcement of the tribunal’s order. The Court pointed out that while the State had the right to challenge the Tribunal’s decision through appropriate statutory channels, it never availed itself of that option; as a result, the order had attained finality in law and should have been implemented.
In rejecting the State’s submissions, the Court stressed that tribunals of this nature are presided over by legally trained adjudicators, and their judgments are judicial in character. The High Court made clear that any attempt to treat such decisions as discretionary or non-binding undermines the integrity of quasi-judicial processes and subverts the obligation of public bodies to respect judicial orders. The bench rejected the State’s contention that the Tribunal had acted beyond its jurisdiction or erred in law, labeling such arguments as both legally unsound and procedurally improper given the failure to challenge the order when the proper statutory mechanisms were available.
As a consequence, the High Court directed the State to comply with the Tribunal’s reinstatement order forthwith, treating the petitioner as reinstated with all attendant benefits and dues. The Court also ordered payment of his arrears, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within sixty days. The judgment underscores the principle that orders of competent quasi-judicial tribunals are binding on parties, and must be implemented in toto, without delay or evasion.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.