, HIGH COURT OF CHHAT‘TiSGARi-l: EILASPUR Wi’it Petitiozi 227 N0. 2247 of 2008 (Writ Petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india) 5%: Hon’bie Mr. Sao'sh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri H.V.Sharma, counseiforthe petitioner. ORAL OR9£R (eassed on 21“ day of Aprii. zoos) By this petition, the peritkoner impugns the order dated 1541 0—2007 passed by the mdustriai Court (Annexure Fri), whereby the appeai against the order dated 19-1 2—2006 (Annexure P/2) was dismissed. 2) The facts, in nutsheii, are the: the petitioner was employed ae Driver in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short "ivi.P.S.R.T.C”). There was a departmeniai enquiry against the respondent No.1 wherein he was found guiity. Aooordingiy, his sevices were terminated vide order dated i96- 2000. On dissoiution of MPSRTC, the petitioner Corporation succeeded the State Transport Corporation. 3) Feeling @grieved, the petitioner iiied an appiioation before the Labour Court in Case No. K.T.’IIA-79/M.P.i.Ri20t)2. The Labour Court, after having considered the submissions and facts of the case, came to oonoiusion that the petitioneriempioyer had faiied to estabiish mis—oonduct against the respondent No.1. Thus, the orders dated 13-6—2009 and 19—6-2000 were bad and iiiegai. The Labour Court further examined the fact asto whether the respondent No.1 was ‘ e/w/ ;4. ,« Petitioner CG. infrastructure Devekonment Corporation Non-ap9!icant No.4 through the Divisionai Manager, C.!.D.C,,' Raisur, Diamct Raipur (CG). Versus oesnoraden‘ts 1) Abdu: Rauf Ouareshi, aged about 4S years, S/o. Applicaat Abdu! Gani, Rm. Maudahapara‘ Subhash Nagar (Behind Ta} Engineering) Raipur, District Ra%pur (CG). 2) Sndustriai Tribunai at Raipur (CG). @ W . empbyed eisewhere. After having examined, me Labaur Cour‘i came t9 conciusion that the respondent No.1 was not in any empioyment eisewhere. The respondent No.1 also appiied for job to one Mahendra Traveiéers, but the same was denied on account of his being over age. The Labour Com accordingiy granted reinstatement wim 25% backwagee. 4) The industriai Court, in appeais med by both the parties upneid the finding of the Labour Court and dismissed the appeai of the petitioner as also the 'oross appeai of the respondent No.1. 5) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submtts that the finding of the Labour Court putting burden on the empioyer to prove mts—conduct is perverse and it requires to be set aside. On query, to produce the report of departmental enquiry, iearned counsei took the stand that it was the responsibiiity of the respondent Noni to produce the enquiry report. Therefore, report couid not be fiied. On perusai of the documents appended thereto; findings of the Labour Court and that of the appeiiate court appear to be just and proper. it does not warrant any interference under Articie 227 of the Constttution of india. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner iastiy submits that the petitioner has raised the ground of iimitation at appeiiate stage that was rejected. it is rightiy rejected as the ground 0t iimitation ought to have been raised before the Labour Court, not in the appeiiate Court. 6) it is weii settied principie of iaw that under Artioie 227 of the Constitution of india, this Court has jurisdiction of judiciai review of the order passed by the Court beiow, in the event, there is manifest and apparent error on the face of the proceedings based on the ciear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of iaw or there is grave faiiure of injustice has occasioned thereby. Further, this court cannot aiso entertain the petition in its supervisory jurisdiction if there is perversity, irreguiarity or iiiegaiity in the process of decision, not in the decision itseir, 7} in View of foregoing, the petition is dismissed eummariiv. Vl/i/V w” Sd/- Satish K.Agnihctri . Judge Raju ow