^ / O^co^ IN THE,' HIGH GOURT OF JUDIC^TURB ^T BIIAS.PUR(CHI^TTIS.G^RH) ^7~ WRIT PETJTION N0 6) GF 20QS PKTITIONER yBaghunandan prasad Banjare^ / son of pheruram Banjare, aged about 50 years^ resident of c, c ^ z, coi ony, Pos t--M,andhar , District-Raipur, (C,G.) V E R & U S RES.PONaEN'] ...>tt^ •• ^^- : lo The Industrial Court, Raipur^ Oistrict Ralpur,(CoGo) '^> Oement Corporation of India, through its Manager, ( P & X) Mandhar, Qis tri ct-Raipi.ir. (c. G. ) ^ WRIT PE.TITION UNDE.R AtRTICLBS,> 2^6/227 OE OF THE CONS.TITUTION OF INDI^. . IE ^' ^F^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARHATLBILASPUE f' 2. —^^^^^ 'i. " Writ Petition No, 81 of 2004 Petitioner Raghunandati Prasad Banjarc -Versus- Respondents : The Industrial Court, Raipiir & ofhers Siagle Beacli: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Ag)aihotei. Shri B, D, Guru, Advocate for thc Pctitioncr, Shri N. K. Vyas, Advocate for the Respondexit No.2. ORDER (F^ssed on this 6th day ofFehniaTy, 2007) 1, The present petition filed under Article 226/227 offhe Constitution of India, seekiag writ/dircction to reinstate the petitioner in service wifh back wages ond other consequential benefits without mipugniag the order dated 22.10.2003 (Annexurc P/l), passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 258/M.P.I.R./A-II/2001 whercin the order of removal dated 20.12.1994 (Annexure R-2/2) was held as valid, legal and proper, The facts m nutshell are that fhe petitioner was worldag as Electdciaa-cum-Wiremen in fhe respondent No.2 Coiporation. The petitioner remained absent fioin his duty fiwm 10.10.1994 till 20.12.1994. The petitioner vide appHcation dated 9.10.1994 informed fhe employer that he is leaviag his official accommodation allotted to him at Mandhar and proceedmg to his parental house, seeking leave from 10.10.1994 to 20.12.1994. 3. The petitioner without waiting for grant of leave proceeded for his parental house. Thercafier vide letters (Annexarc P/3 coUectively), thie petitioner requested for exteiision of his leave t£tl 1.12.1994. Thereafter fhe petitioner rcmamed absent tEU 20.12.1994, Ixi fhe ^•2)- %^^^^^w ^^•^^"-•~:-•':-> " •\ meaatime fhe respondent Corporation exercisiag its powers mider clause 10 (h) ofthe Standmg Orders for Mandhar unit offfae Cement CorporatioH of India, issued a notice on 30.11.1994 (Aanexurc R- 2/1), directing ftie petitioner to report on duly wifhin 15 days. Admittedly, as held by fhe Labour Court as wett as by fhe Industrial Court, this notice was received by the petitioner. Despite notice fhe petitioner did not take any step eifher to join his duties withia 15 days or to make aay rcpresentatioa m rcgard to his inabiUty to compfy witih. fhe notice. The respondent-Corpoiution exercisuig its powers provided iinder clause 10(h) of fhe Staadirtg Orders, terminated fhe seryices of the petitioner and stnick off his aauie from fhe roll of the Corporation vide order dated 20. 12.1994 (Amiexure R-2/2). 4. Being aggrieved, fhe petitioner filed aa applicatioa uiider section 31(3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before fhe Labour Coml. The Labour Court vide order dated 18.9.2001 (Annexure P/2), passed m Case No. 18/MPIR/95, after haviag considercd all fhe facts held that the j^titiouer despite receivmg fhe notice iiader clause 10 (h) of the Standing Ordere did not join the duty. The Labour Court in the facts aad circumstaiices of fhe case furttier held fhat the punishment imposed was disprop^rtionate, fhus fhe Labour Court directed reuistatement offhe petitk>ner in sewice wifh fuU back wages witii a further direction ofstoppage ofone incrcment offhe petitioner and penalty ofRs, 500/-. 5 . The ludustrial Court, ia appeal filed by fhe respondent No,2 Corporation haviag considered aU fhe aspects of fhe matter came to fhe conclusion as under :- " ?RT^ ^PT ^r s^frw-r ^wict^ "^ ^ arih ^ q>fNrft 'i^ ^ir^ui ^re? ?NT ^HI t ^P-TT ^ET^t 3^ ^F^ Rudl ^H f^cttd ^[ ^•.'^WRT ^ ^TT^ ^T .3TI^?r felT f ^ w^rr ^T^etrPRp t Ri^^ ^fe ^pft?r ^ ^t <^ .....-^-^^ 1<%) ^ff 7ffq>cft <Ntf^ ^4-^t^ <^ xgf ^ cfr=r ^TR ^tft ^l^^!"t ^f ^ ^^ W^ W^ -^ f^pt ^RT^ <^t TT<^ft ^T ^ 1E R ^ ^^ ^^T •aw^if (10) ^ ^ yi^t'ri1l' <^ si^pfer 4>4^it^ ^ f^K': ^ ^r'm ^RI ulHT ^rf^T 9.TI 1 3^iN^-( ^l^ld^ ^ ?? 7^ WT^ ^ ^ -F[ ^ 3A^5T •^ ^: ^W?{T ^r? ^PT <t>T W^?I ^I ift ^3f^T ^ S^PH uff WKd | " 6. Shri B. D. GIUTI, leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitfoner in fhis petitioa contended fhat fhe petitioaer was not m such a position to attend fhe duties wifhin 15 days. The action of fhe respondents, strikiag off fhe aaiae of the petitioner from fhe roU of the com.paay was disproportioHate, thus fhe order offhe Labour Court is fllegal aad mvalid. Learaed counsel reUed on a decisiou offhe Supreme Court in tlie case of Upteon India Ltd. Vs. Shammi Bltan and anotliei H1998)6SCC538}. 7. Per contia, Shri N. K. Vyas, leamed counsel appearmg for the rcspondent-Corporation submits ftiat fhe oider of removal of fhe petitioner from senrice and storiking off his name from fhe roU of fhe Corporation is stdcfly in accoidaace wifh fhe provisions of fhe Standmg Orders. The petitioner has deUberatefy and unaufhorizedly absented hmiselfaad had not attenipted to maJke aay reprcsentation or join fhe services wifhm the statutoiy period of 15 days from the date of issue of fhe notice. Clause 10 (h) of fhe Standmg Orders is relevant, which reads as under :« a 10. FESTIVAL. HOLIDAYS AND LEAVE (h) If any workman/employee reniains abseat beyond 15 days contmuously wifhout prior sanction of leave/penxiission/ intimation fhe maaagement thercafter issue him a iiotice to resume work/duty withia a fortsiight with suflftcient justification from his unaufhorized absence, failing which he witt be deemed to have aban-doned the services of Corporation voluntarily ao.d his name wUl be struck ofif from fhe roUs of fhe Corporatioa. If such T' ^—^> workman/employee resumes work/duly wifhin a fortmght ofissue of the aotice ao.d niaaagement is not satisfied about his absence, fhe workmaa shaU be Uable for disciplinaxy action accordmg to sta&dmg orders. In case a workman loses his seryice on the above grouuds, the management wfll consider for k^epmg his name on the'badliMsf Thus fhe order oftiie Labour Court ia perfectty legal just and proper. Havu^ heard leanied counsel for the parties aad havmg regard to fhe facts and ctrcumstauces of fhe case, fhe reliance of fhe petitioiier in Uptron Indla Ltd. (supra) is not relevaat to fhe facts of fhe present. case. It appears fhat fhe conditions of clause 17 (g) af the Staadmg Order in that case does not provide for 'automafic termination^ but fhe services were Uable to automatic termiaation. In the present case clause 10 (h) of fhe Staadmg Order is veiy clear and there is no scope for the maaagement to consider aa^d exercise its powers, The facte and law involved iu fhe case ofUptron India Ltd. (supra) are different aad aot applicable to the facts ofthe prcsent case. The facts are admitted fhat fhe petitioner remained absent unaufhorizedly from 10.10.1994 to 20.12.1994 aad has not compMed wifh fhe aotice issued by the respondent-Corporation. In view of that no exception cao. be taken to the fmdings rccoxded and the order passed by the Industrial Cozirt aad as such no interference is warranted in fhe order dated 22.10.2003 (Annexure P/l) passed by fhe Industrial Court. 10. As a result and for fhe reasons stated above, fhis ^tition staads dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 9. Thakur