Orders Passed By Tribunals Are Not Optional: Rajasthan High Court Raps State For 'Contumacious Disregard' Of Industrial Tribunal's Order
Rajasthan High Court came down heavily upon the State for not complying with the reinstatement order of the Industrial Tribunal passed in 2019, and opined that this failure coupled with the State's attempt to raise a belated, untenable and legally unsound plea, exhibited a “contumacious disregard for the rule of law”.The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the architecture of a...
Rajasthan High Court came down heavily upon the State for not complying with the reinstatement order of the Industrial Tribunal passed in 2019, and opined that this failure coupled with the State's attempt to raise a belated, untenable and legally unsound plea, exhibited a “contumacious disregard for the rule of law”.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the architecture of a tribunal was not merely administrative but quasi-judicial and orders emanating from it were judicial in essence, endowed with authoritative efficacy. Such orders could not be treated as inconsequential, advisory or optional for compliance.
“It was incumbent upon the respondents, as a matter of constitutional discipline and administrative propriety, to honour, implement, and give full effect to the Tribunal's order in toto. Their failure to do so coupled with their attempt to raise a belated, untenable, and legally unsound plea before this Court without first invoking any statutory remedy exhibits a contumacious disregard for the rule of law. Such conduct not only militates against judicial propriety but also warrants serious deprecation.”
The Court was hearing a petition filed by a bus conductor, appointed in 1982, whose services were terminated by the State following certain allegations. This order was challenged before the Tribunal. In 2019, the Tribunal set aside the removal of the petitioner, and directed his reinstatement. The State did not comply, which was challenged before the Court.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the State was fully empowered to challenge the tribunal's order before a competent forum, but the statutory remedy was not availed that led to the order attaining finality in the eyes of law.
The Court also stressed upon the fact that constitution of the tribunal being quasi-judicial in nature, and not merely administrative, which was presided over by judicial officer or a person with commensurate legal acumen. Hence, orders of such tribunal were judicial in nature, having authoritative efficacy.
In this light, it was held,
“Therefore, the plea now sought to be raised by the respondents that the Tribunal misconceived its jurisdiction or erred in law is not only legally unsustainable but also an affront to the well-settled principles governing the finality of judicial determinations. Such conduct undermines the sanctity of institutional adjudication, erodes the authority of quasi-judicial forums, and strikes at the very foundation of judicial discipline.”
Accordingly, the Court directed the State to comply with the tribunal's order by treating the petitioner as being reinstated in service and restoring all his consequential benefits and dues with an interest of 6% per annum, within a period of 60 days.
Title: Shyam Sundar Vaishnav v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 400