SEil-..,.;: c'^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATISGARHi W. P. N0.^97 OF 2003 PETITIONERS t^-'_ "^y .<y50"" >'"..-' 1. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, fhrough it.s Secretaiy Dangajiia, Raipiir (C.G.) 2. Executive Engineer (Civil) <<B1,^ &»''' VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ 400 K. V. Cr.Tl Construction Division, CbjT.attisgarh State Electadcity Board, Bhilai-3, & Officer-in-Chaj-ge of the Petitioner Nol. l./ Shri J. K. Kacchap, S/o J.C. / Kacchap, aged about 58 yrs, Rtd.A.ssistant Gr.II presently residing at Rawanbhata Near KapilTailors, Post. ACC Jartiul, Tahsil and District Duj-g (Chhattisgarh) 2. Industrial Court Bench at Raipur (Chhattisgarh), iNB?' wRrrpETrnoN WJDER ARTICLE 227 OF^HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF W^T IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE. WRIT OR WRITS, DIRE^TION OR DIR.ECTldNS. ORDER OR ORDERS: XI-HC-22 'S^-'itWigiSt walwiia,. fiiiiiKf^; '^.fHS^sftaT. *ii*i!ni?at*uaft"^ ""'"""'""" ^^-^- •si9t 3II^BW: Ri'iipKai^'r »»lfl<=p<fwg? atelSIBITtlffect 12.3.2004 Petitioners tay Shri Sanjay K. None on behalf of fhe Heard. The petitioner has preferred Constitutioa of India.chaUeiigmi the Industrial Court, Bench at 11/2001 whereby fhe oider dated 2.: set aside and the appeal ofthe Res^) The relevaiit facts leading t6 Responderit No. 1 J.K.Kacchap wasj Chhatasgarli State Electricily eiiiployinetit he was aUotted House| was posted at Sakti Nagar 1986. Thereafter he was transferTJ Khedamara Janiul td Bhitai ; Kaiiker, aad theq Kaaker to Balo4 said quarter Np. E/28.Therefore rent of the said quarter for fhe tuneofRs. 31,358/-. i Aggrieved by the said Einployee/ Respondeut |No; 1 approsj leamed Labour Court vide its 1 applicatioa of tihfi Respondent No. 1, Respondent No.l preferred aa ^garwal, Advocate. Responpent No. 1. Rajtpur Khedanlara fAe peric|i pp^al '^ii^Ic'^Ii'1)^ '•fWi^l'^^^ •d^^K ^aSwn^tt piis petition under Article 227 of fhe fie onler dated 22.3.2002 passed by ia Civil AppealNd. 79/MPIR-A- P.2001 passed by the Labour Court is liondent No. 1 was aUowed. |fi1ing offhis writ petition are fhat fhe ;working as Assistaat Grade-II in the goard (C.S.E.B.) and durrng his SNo, E^28, M.P.E.B. Colonywhen he Jamul, he reinaiiied fhere up to ?d iu the monili of,July, 1986 from he was traiisferred from Bbilai to Division, but he did not vacate the petitioner/ C. S.E. B. deducted penal fiom 11.5.1990 to-3.11.1993 to the a<|tiQa of the enrpfeyer/Board, fhe ifaed ihe Labour Coiirt, Durg aud fhe ^rder dated 2.2.2001 rejected the Beiag aggrieved by fhe smd oiderthe before fhe Industrial Court, Raipur XI-HC-22 'S^ ^fWSglf, SS'WWIS, 3TI^T MsKfe «wei(g»*uflt "5^. 20» anig^ ft-(i<<> a^B S^H? ^I¥<9 | ari^^ ^C^^ ^1 9, vSs ^ fb Aanexiu-^ P/ 2 and leamed Iiidiistrial Court after of the impugned order that fhe ^; givin^g notice to fhe Respondent order it is farther observed that tUi the luarket rent has not been prodiji As far as fhe question ofgivi4; cbncemed a perusal offhe statem^ before fhe Labour Court reveals statement that Ex.P/1 fhe letter dt.{ served on him but'prior to thafhc^ fhereafler a penal icnt of Rs. ^ adnutted that he received the notice Annexure P/2 he vacate4 [berore receiying Ex.F/1 fherefore] |l?espondeut No. 1 thfi findiag ofttie{ tcontraiy to the iccord therefarc fhe As far as the reGpvery of the| lus stateinent fhe Respondent No| itraD.sferred enipkiyee isj entitted to Ifhereafter if the quarter is not v; charge double fhe rentjfor next tro^ entifled to recover penal rent. Thei) |about the penal rent, and fhe leamed Industrial Court is also •Fecovered as per fhe prevaitmj Rul* <*wfclfll-l Ni'teS4^S Awgit ^•iiP^ya^B teanng the parties ebserved in para-6 faid rent has been deducted wifhout i.l, and in para-7 of the impugned circulars relatmg to fhe recoveiy of ;ed, ^g notice before unposuig penal rent is ^it of Respondent No. 1 which he gave that he adBiitted ia para-1 of his \29.10.1993 about the penal icnt was such letter was received by him and 1,358/- was deducted. He fuTther ia this regard and after receivrag flie said quarter. He received Ex. P/ 2 ia view of fhis adinission of the learned Industrial Court iu para-6 is ^anie cannot be sustaiaed. penal rent is conceraed ia para-9 of 1 has stated fhat it is true that a ^etam fhe quarter for,ty monfhs aad lcated then the BOSETCI is entitled to monfhs aad theresjfter the BQard is rfbre the respondent No. 1 was aware rent fherefore this fiiidiag of fhe auy basis aad the rent has been aiid Regulations ofthe Board. More marlcet witliout •r—: XI-HC-22 •fe 'W<W-!i,;^'flw tRi«»»s<. 3ii^?T 'q'a^ W-ICTItKIW* „—.„...—..~.^^—... 3)^^ Vw»•a^sn Sft*WI> «' ^ sitSs <<wiw8fts -3- over the Respondent No. 1 has ad^n: on his traasfer he received T.A.D.i chargeg of luggage. B/hen he was BhUai to Balod and Balod to T.A. D.A. fi^m the Board. Tfaerefortj transfer altowsaicesiiicludiiigthe then he did not vacate'fhie quarter In view offhe above, the itupose penal reiit as 'per the ,:A leamed Industrial Cotiat is nofWsl record and the evidence of fhe Rei is aUowed and the order passed by Parties are entitled for certi&4d Jafedalpur petp' cgecjulars <bfyei'A-< «Wi!S4f^l<h*S!l ~^3f l^nitted in para-4 ofjiis statement that L. aud he also receiyed transportatioQ 'traD.sferred to BIulai:froin jKliedamara, on all traasfers he received fhe Respondent No. 1 received aU the 1|-arisportation charges ofluggage; even ^fthe petitioner/C.S.E.B. t^ioner/C.S.E.B. was.witttm its right to of fhe Board. The order of fhe ilEainable as the sauie is coiitrarv to the ^pondent No.l. Theiefore, the petifton tfhe IndustrialTribuiial is set-aside. cbpy oftfais order. Sd/- LC.Bhadoo L judge A m