^E^ "r e -^ "y'* l.^-^*A -5. '(\ ''Yi' 4/" In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh M Jabalpur. Managing Direc'tor, Steel Authority Of India Ltd., Bhi lai Stee 1 Plant ,. Bhilai Distt. Durg'(MP) Vrs. 1) Gurudasrara'Sharma S/0 Late Pandit Mangat Ram Sharaa, Fire Sngine,I3river -cun-Panp Operator, Fire Brlgade Deptt, Bhilai Steel Plant,Bhilai(MP) Qrt.No. 13/t)Cft.-l Type, Street No.1, Ssctor-4, Bhilai Nagar. c, 2) IndustnalCpurt,. ^ Raipur Bmch, Kiishna Sadan, l6,HIG, .Shankar Nagar, Raipur' (MP) 3) Laboyr Court, D ur g (MP) Misc.Petition No._$993 t)-/3>-CeOl( Petiticgier. Respondents. Peti.ti.ai Unaler^rticls -226 /227 of the Constitutian of India. ' i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3870 of 1993 Managing Director, Steel Authority oflndia Ltd. -Versus- Giirudasram Sharma & others Shri Gautam. Bhaduri, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate for fhe Respondent No. 1. ORDER ( 19.7.2005) Bv Justice Satish K. AgniTiotri. ^^ 1. The Respondent No.l (Gurudasrani Sharma) was working as Sr. Fire Engiae Driver-cuin- Puinp Operator in the Fire Brigade Departnient of the petitioner/ Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Ltd. It is alleged that the Respondent No.l refused to cany out fhe order of his superior to wash tum out vehicle No. 9179, on 7.4.1986. It is adinitted by both fhe parties that fhe duty and job description offhe Respondent No.l provides forwashiug oftum out vehicle. 2. The Respoudent No. 1 was chai^e sheeted vide order dated 28.5.1986 (Annexure P/2) for fhe niMcoaduct of uot obeying the orders of his senior to wash tum out vehicle No. 9179. In fhe doinestic enqiuiy fhe charges were found proved. Thus, pursuaat to the doinestic enquity report, the Respondent No.l was reverted back to the lower post of Fire Eii^ine Driver-cum Pmnp Operator on fhe mmimiiTn pay scaleofRs. 645-26-827-28-1023 for a period of two years wifh cuniulati.ve effect, w.e.f. fhe date ofissuance ofthe order i.e. 8.1.1987 (Aimexurc P/3). 3. Being aggneved by fhe order of punislunent/peiially, the Respondent No.l filed an application under Section31(3) readwifh -V- 6. Section 61 of fhe Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 praying iater atia fhat fhe punishinent/penalty is h^hly dispropordonate aad shocking to fhe atleged misconduct. The petitioner filed fhe written stateiuent subinittmg that fhe niisconduct has been proved ia the enquuy aad fhe Respoudent No. l has adDutted tfaat the washing of tum out vehicle was his responsibilily; as such the penally/puiustunent ofreverting back to ftie lower post and nuniinuni pay scale was righfly imposed. The Labour Court by its order dated l.8.1990 while dismissing fhe application of the Respondent No. 1 held fhat the Respondent No. 1 has coinnutted inisconduct by not obeying the order of fhe senior officer to wash turu out vehicle No. 9179. The Labour Court did not consider and pass any order on the question of justification of fhe iraposed punisluiient/penalty. Beuig aggrieved by fhe order passed by fhe Labour Court the Respondent No.l preferrcd aa appeal before fhe Industrial Court aud fhe Industrial Court vide its order dated 17.3.1993 after having heard both. fhe pardes aad perusiag the records came to fhe conclusion fhat fhe Labour Court has not considered the Issue No.3 specificaUy dealiag with the quantuin ofpunishinent/peD.alty, as to whefher fhe punislunent/penalty imposed was proportionate or the pjinishinent/penalty was excessive, dispropordonate and shocking to fhe aUeged laisconduct. In that view, the Industrial Court reinauded back fhe inatter to the Labour Court for deciding fhe Issue No.3 as to whefher fhe puaishiaent/penatty uaposed was excessive and disproportionate. The present petition is ffled under Ardcle 226-227 of fhe Constitution of India by the petitioner Bhilai Steel Plant chatlengmg the order dated 17.3.1993 passed by fh.e Industrial Court fhereby IJ:.Ljau l?"'';?'- 8. c;' 10, remanding back the niatter to fhe Labour Court for fesh disposal on. fhe issue of imposition of puiushmeut as to whether fhe same was excessive aad/or disproportionate. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitiouer subniits fhat it was not necessary for fhe Labour Court to decide fbe issue of punishinent/penally as the puiushinent is prescribed ia fhe Standing Orders itsetf. Leamed couusel furfher submits that once the misconduct has been found proved it was not necessaiy to go into fhe proportionaUty ofthe punishinent/penally imposed as the authorities have discretion to impose puiushiaent/penalty fhat includes the reduction to a lower grade or post to a lower time scale. The petitioner is not ia a position to explaia as to whefher the Labozu- Court has considered the application of fhe Respondent No.l ia respect of fhe punishment/peiiaUy, as according to fhe Respondent No. 1 fhe puiushinent was dispropordonate, excessive and shockmg. Mr. H. B. Agarwal leamed senaor couiisel appeariag for the Respondent No. 1, on the coutraiy inakes his submission in support offhe order passed by fhe Industrial Court. Afber having considered fhe aiyiinents of both fhe counsels aad having perused fhe records of the case, it te found that fhe Labour Court has not considered fh.e question ofpuiushiuent/penalty as to whefher it vras proper, excessive or disproportionate to the atleged iiiisconduct The question was specificaUy fi-amed as Issue No.3 aad it has not been considered aad decided by the Laboiu- Court. The contention of fhe petitioner is not acceptabk as fhe punislunent/penally for niMconduct provides inajor punishiaent, aad fhe minor punishments and punishments are in the followiiig tenas:- Thakur 11. 12. Miaor pLmishinents:- a) Censure. b) Fine. c) Suspension without wages for a period not exceeding 4 days. Major puiushinents:- a) Stoppage ofincreineut. b) Reduction to a Lower grade or post or Lowe slage in a tune scale. c) Reiaoval from. services which does not disqualify for future einployinent. d) Dismissal fiToin service which disquaUfy for future einploynient. In fhe facts and circumstances as stated above, the order of the Industrial Court is perfectly legal and proper. The writ petition is accordiagly disinissed. There shaU be no ordeis as to costs. Keepiag in view fhe long pendaacy of the case, the Laboiu- Court is directed to decide fhe inatter wifhin. a period of fhree months froia fhe date of the receipt of the order aCter considering the subinissions ofboth the pardes. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge •^?.'.i-V;-i-ii-+^i,--( ^,^^