C/{l 1 mmge Bench /\ m THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATrISGARH AT BTLASPUR WP(L)N0 § (99 x2669 20H PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ‘ F INDIA _ O PETITIONER Chhattlsgarh Infrastructure ‘ Development Corporation Ltd., (Transport Section), Divisiona! Office, Near Bus Stand; 'Bilaspur(C.G.), through its v3“ tya Divisional Manager. Versus w RESPONDENTS :11” Krishna Kumar Gond, S/o Shri . i Vishal Singh, r/o viliage Kachandaraja, P.O. Jharna, ‘ Distt. Janjgir Champa‘ (C.G.). Industrial Court of ‘Chhattisg’arh Bench at Bilaspur(C.G.); V through its Registrar 3. The PreSTdmg Officer Labour .Court Raigarh (C G) c wmv Wm s9,fa“em§g mmwxwwgwfmxm 200 mm (Ww) m'awfvzw ammm mWnma‘iw3IWW WWW ‘agsfaqm SB i Hon 5'6 Slil'l Manlnal‘a Wlorlaill ShfiVaStava‘ J. 08-07-201 1 Shri Ratan Pusty, counsel for the petitioner. Heard. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 05-03-2011 (Annexure P-4) Sassed by the State Industrial Court ort “the tndustrial Court”), by which, d with the order dated 31-03-2010 Jr Court, Korba, in so far as quantum Chhattisgarh, Bench-Bilaspur (In st the industrial Court has interfere (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labo of punishment is concerned. Learned counsel for the petiti by a well reasoned order, after documentary evidence, recorded a employee has failed to establish aner submitted that the Labour Court, thorough appreciation of oral and specific dnding that the respondent- he or his wife was suffering from illness and on such specific findi g, the Labour Court dismissed the petition of the respondent-Employe , but the Industrial Court has taken a perfunctory view and without cons ing in detail the evidence available on record, and without specifically t aversing the finding recorded by the Labour Court, has adopted unduly li eral approach in reducing the penalty to withholding of salary for the entire eriod of absence. The Industrial Court in para , 6 & 7 of its order has taken into consideration the material obtaining n record as well as the oral evidence g led by the employee that he had s bmitted application before the Depot Manager on the ground of illness, which was accepted by the Depot Manager, has not been controverte . The Industrial Court has also taken into consideration the evidence of the employer that the respondent- \employee is stated to be absent fr \ \ 16-01-2001 to 27-03—2001 and that t t i r - o AV WW,§W,W 200 mmmmwma/wa WWW swam 1m? (Wu) mmm the application used to be given to ‘ The Industrial Court has also taken by the respondent-employee for his bsence that the wife of the employee was sick. Considering all these aspects and exercising jurisdiction available to it under Section 107-A fthe Chhattisgarh industrial Relation Act, 1923. (In short “the Act of 19 3") the industrial Court came to the conclusion that in the totality of the circumstances and the reason stated being illnes‘s of the emptoyee an his wife, penalty of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate. The Industrial Court concluded that lesser punishment ought to be ven and on that count alone has interfered with the order of the Labo r Court. siderations, on which, the Industrial of punishment cannot be said to be ”2/ WWWIYWW éwifhm the Depot Manager for grant of leave. o consideration the reason assigned in the opinion of this Court. Court has interfered with the quan wholly irrelevant. The material, on he basis of which, such interference d in the form of oral evidence. The jurisdiction of the industrial Co to interfere with the quantum of punishment in exercise of power u der Section 107-A of the Act of 1923 cannot be disputed. Therefore, i d not find any ground to interfere with the order of Industrial Court in exe cise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of in has been made, is availabie on re u Accordingly, the petition stan s dismissed. Sd/— .... .. ....... Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane ‘ t i n t r dr .