,<• llt ••!^i ./; —. .-o .*r/-^ llt^rs w ^ •' ^c' PET!T!ONER: M/s. Cement Corooration of Cement Factory through its Manager, Akaitara, Disi. Janjgir Champa (CG). RESPONDENT: Rajbahadur Singh and others order on /2.- S-2i Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge //-8-2008 ^y1--'^^', .^-"'^.. /p_-^»t, '^ '% ;^.~-!S?^gs,,. 'k '^9iVS'""a S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR y PETITIONER Wnt Petition No. 4113 of 2004 M/s. Cement Corporation of India, Akaltara Cement Factory, through its General Manager, Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir Champa (CG). Versus Respondents 1) Rajbahadur Singh, S/o. late Indra Bhushan Singh, Former, H.E.O. C.C.I, Akaltara, r/o. Purani Basti, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Chainpa (CG). 2) The Industrial Court through its Chairman, Raipur (CG). 3) The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri P.S. Koshy, counsel for the petitioner. •H (Passedon /Z day ofAugust, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 25-8-2004 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur, in Appeal No. 184/MPIR/A/11/2003, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was partly allowed to the extent of grant of 50% back wages in lieu of full back wages and order of reinstatement was upheld as well as the order dated 31-7-2003 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur, in Case No. 171/MPIR/94, whereby the application of the respondent No.l herein was allowed and the petitioner was '••* i'' '•'SS^' .£" directed to reinstate the respondent No. 1 in service with full back- wages. 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the respondent No.l joined the services of the petitioner as Heavy Equipment Operator on 17-9-1979. He was reraoved from service on 20-1-2003 on account of an infighting or assault which took place, wherein allegedly respondent No.l (Raj Bahadur Singh) and other employees were involved. A criminal case was lodged which resulted into conviction by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and then the acquittal of the respondent No. 1 by the Sessions Court in appeal. In the departmental enquiiy, the respondent No.l was punished with termination from service on 20-1-2003. Being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 18-2-1993. 3) Being aggrieved, the respondent No.l preferred an application before the Labour Cour, Bilaspur, under the provisions of Section 61 (l)(a) (a) of M.P/CG. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short, "the Act, 1960"). The Labour Court, after having considered all the aspects, held that the petitioner failed to establish a case of criminal assault before the Criminal Court. The respondent No.l was firstly convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir and thereafter in appeal the respondent No.l was exonerated by the Sessions Court by the order dated 11-5- 1999. A departmental enquiry was initiated, on the same ground for the same incident. Learned Labour Court, accordingly held that the basis on which the petitioner initiated a departmental enquiry, has not been established in the criminal Court, wherein '*.- the same evidences were produced on the same charges. Accordingly, the Labour Court by order dated 31-7-2003 (Annexure P/2) allowed the appeal of the respondent No.l and directed the petitioner to reinstate hira in serviee with full back wages. 4) Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, after having considered all the aspects, upheld the order of reinstatement, but modified the grant of back-wages to the extent of 50% on 25-8-1994 (Annexure P/l). The petidoner has filed this petition on 25-10-2004. The matter carae up for hearing on 4-2-2005. On the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, no steps were taken to get the matter listed again. 5) Mr. P.S. Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly the witnesses produced and examined before the Criniinal Court were the same which were examined in the departmental enquiiy. The criminal court did not find the charges of assault made against the respondent No.l as proved. Thus, the respondent No.l was exonerated in appeal by the Sessions Court. Proper enquiry was held and the petitioner was found guilty. Accordingly, a punishment of termination was imposed on the petitioner by order dated 20-1-1993 and the appeal against the said order was also rejected by the Director, Corporation by order dated 18-2-1993. 6) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and docuraents appended thereto. It is evident that the petitioner has not taken steps to get the impugned order dated 25-8-2004 (Annexure P/ 1) stayed and as such, as it is well established principle of law that until and unless the order passed by a Court is set aside or modified by the superior court, the sanne remains binding on the parties, even if the matter is pending consideradon before the superior court. (See - Rafique Bibi (Dead) by L.Rs v. Sayed Waliudin (dead) by L.Rs1 and Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliar (dead) by LRs Vs. Gopal Naidu (dead) by LRs2 Thus, the petitioner must have complied with the order passed by the Industrial Court. 7) The pedtioner has not produced an order of termination and the enquiiy report to establish that enquiry was proper in the teeth of the order of the Labour Court that a departmental enquiry was not legal and proper. Thus, on the basis of available material on record, it is difficult to consider the issue as to whether enquiry was proper or not. On the basis of pleadings and submissions made by the petitioner, it cannot be held that the order of the Court below was not in accordance with law. 8) It is trite law that even in case of acquittal in the criminal Court, the employer can initiate a departmental enquiry against its employee. However, if the evidences are the same and on the basis of that the respondent No.l has been acquitted in the criminal Court, then enquiry holding the employee guilty normally ' 2004 (1) SCC 287 2 (200612 SCC 390 <:~^ appears to be faulty. As stated above that no documents have been produced to examine the facts, no finding can be recorded on the materials available. 9) In the matter of Abhilesh Kuniar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and others3 the Supreme Court observed as under. "15. It is true that delinquent officers similariy situated should be dealt with similarly and, thus if the charges against the employees are identical, it is desirable that they be dealt with similarly. 18..... The superior courts of India exercising power of judicial review, it is trite, would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment. Even the Industrial Court would not do so.....". 10) The scope of interference with judicial enquiry under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is well established. In the matter of Mrs. Rena Drego Vs. Lalcdhand Soni, etc.,4 the Supreme Court held as under: "4. According to us, the High Court has traversed for beyond the limit of the supervisoiy jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution when the leamed single Judge reversed the decree of eviction which was based on findings of facts arrived at by the fact - finding authority upon the evidence on record. It would have been well for the High Court to remind itself that it was not exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but a supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 which obliges the High Court to confme to the security of 3 (2008) 2 SCC 74 4AIR 1998 SC 1990 m*t ""'•;a3 <?.. .'••'' t 's^^^'1 '-o" •I records and proceeding of the lower tribunal. By relying on fresh materials which were not before the tribunal, the High Court should not have disturbed findings of. facts in exercise of such supervisoiy jurisdiction. It is now well nigh settled that power under Article 227 is one of judicial superintendence which cannot be used to upset conclusions of facts, however, erroneous those may be,» unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no court could ever have reached them. Way back in 1954, a Constitution Bench of this Court, in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215, has pointed out that the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 should be exercised "most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors"." 11) Applying well settled principles of law as stated above to the facts of the case, it is evident that the charges before the criminal Court as well as in the departmental enquiry were £he saine and the evidences produced and examined before the criminal Court as well as the enquiiy authority are also the same. The petitioner has further not produced adequate inaterial to consider perversity or error in the orders passed by the courts below. Thus, no interference is warranted. The impugned order dated 25-8-2004 (Annexure P/l) and to that extent of the order dated 31-7-2003 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur, are just and proper. 12) - For Ae reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed. Costs easy. ——— — satish K. Agnihotri Judge