^ IN THS HOI^'BL"; HIGH GOURT O? CHHt-TTISGARH AT BrLASPUR. W.p. No Petitloner Respondents Laxman ft-asad S/o Lete Durjan, aged 45 years, R/o Vlllage - Sirsa-Jeora Teh. & Distt.'DUR.S (C.Q.). Versus. naglng Director SAIL, Bhllsi Sfceel Elsnt Bhllai. iS K^ 2. Industrial ibunal, aAipua. 3. Labour Cburt,» - .' DIJHG. rt-1 . ^•a" . •"---• ^^•f ^ .-l.»'/^' •-%• ltA^-Eetition_ ideI" -'&'tlale 226/227 of the Constitatipn^ of 3'n<3ia* mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WMT PETITION No. 679 of2001 Laxman Prasad -Versus- Managing Uirector, SASL & others JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION L.C. Bhadoo Judge HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE d\ fi <'./'y"-i/'" Sd/- ChiefJustice POST FOR JUDGMENT ON ^'i^Jurf^ 2003 JUDGE ^ <2^fJuly, 2003 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G. WRIT PETITION No. 679 of 2001 Laxinan Prasad -Versus- Managiag Director, SAIL & others Petitioner by Stul N.L.Shrivastava Respondent No. 1 by Shri P. Diwakar Division Bench: Hoa'ble 8bxi K.H.N. Kuraaga, C.J. and Hoa'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo, J, ORDER (DeUvered on^4_July, 2003) The.fQUQwjng order ofthe Court was delivered bv Justice L.C.Bhadog: 1. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of ludia the petitioner has challeuged fhe order dated 20dl Jaauaiy, 2001 passed by fhe Industa'ial Court, Madhya Pradesh Bench, Raipur in CivU Appeal No. 218/MPIR Act/A- 11/2000 by which learued Industrial Court has affinaed fhe order dated 25th August, 2000 passed by the learaied Labour Court, Durg in Case No. 49/MPIR/95. - 2. The brieffacts leading to fflmg ofthis petition by the petitioner Laxman Prasad are that the petitioner was appoiuted on the post of Khatesi iu Bhilai Steel Plaat but vide order dated 17.4.1979 fhe respondent/company had terminated his services on. fhe ground fhat he had produced a false certificate to fhe effect that he had worked for 240 days in Bhilai Steel plant. Aggrieved by the order of termination the petitioner isised a dispute before the Laboiu- Court, Durg by filmg an appUcation under section 31 of fhe Madhya Pradesh 4. Industnal Relations Act which was registercd as Case No. 61/M.P.I.R./79. Leamed Labour Court vide order dated 16.1.1982 rejected fhe same. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the leamed Labour Court the petitioner filed the appeal No.20/MPIR/82 before the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, Indore which was disinissed vide Judgment dt. 7.6.1983 to fhe eflfect that "for the reason given ia the Judgnient passed today ia Appeal No.22/MPIR/82, this appeal is dismissed with the recominendations made fherein". In Appeal No. 22/MPIR/82 leamed Industrial Court while maintaming fhe order passed by the leamed Labour Court, in the last para ofthe judginent observed that " lookiag to fhe circuiastauces of fliis case viz. fhat fhe appeUant is iUiterate and he has taken an wrong actiou wifh a vievv to over conie starvation on account of his uneiaplojTiient, I would recominend to the conipany to reconsider his case as the company has done iu the cases of other eniployees and substittite a lenient puiiishineiit. However, if fhe coinpany consulers to take a lenient view, fhe appeUaat shall not be entitled to auy back wages." FeeUng aggrieved by fhe said judginent dt, 7.6.1983 the petitiouer along wifh two others namely Jiwrakhan Lal Yadav and Naud Kumar Yadav filed a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India which was registered as M.P.No. 2792 of 1983 and the same was dismtesed by the Division Bench vide order dt.28.2.1991. A bare perusal of par^raph-4 of the order dt. 28.2.1991 reveals that fhe petitioner aflter loosiug the case on merit made a request that he be given similar treatiuent as has been given to fhe ofher ^ 5. employees who were also dismissed fioia service on the smular count but later on their penalty was reduced to reduction ia salaiy therefore the petitioner should also be given the same tieatment and as the coinpany is uot giving fhat treatuaent it is violative ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution of India. The High Court after considering aU the aspects of the cases of the sitnilarly situated einployees which were cited by the petitioner dismissed the petition with the obscrvatiou that the petitioners are not able to make out a discnmuiatioii and that "if fhe employer iaflicts certam puiushnient to one and a little different puiiishment to fhe ofher, it wiU be very difficult to say fhat fhe one icceiviag severe punishment has been discrmunatEd iu. fhat regard aud would, therefoie be entifled to protefction under Ardcle 14 of the Constitutiou, The employer must be invested with some discretion in fhis regard and the puiushment awarded ia each case m.ust, therefore, be examiued ia the Ught of attending circuiustances, That beias so, we hold that the petitioners arc no right iu contending fhat fhere has been discrmiiaation aad they have been dealt wifh rather harshly in fhe matter of award of punishinent. Froin the perusal of fhe record it reveals fhat the petitioner also tned to support his case on the ground ttiat he also got eniployinent on fhe ground fhat his land was acquired for setting up of fhe Bhilai Steel Plant as such he was entifled for appoiatment ia Bhilai Steel Plant but later on he abandoned fhat claua and ui fhe enquuy it was found that the certtficate produced by the petitioner regardiag his previous eniployment was found to be fake aad therefore the Competent Authority held fhat siuce he has obtauied the einployinent based on a 7. fake certificate by coiiunitting a fi-aud on the coiapauy ultunately his services were terminated vide order dt. 17.4.1979. After loosing up to the High Court it appears fhat ia the year 1995 the petitioner again inoved to the Labour Court by filin; Case No. 49/MPIR/95 attegmg that the Maaagmg Director Bhilai Steel Plaat has coinmitted conteiapt of Court by not actiitg upon the reconunendations inade in the order dt. 7.6.1983 passed by fhe Industrial Court. Leamed Labour Court rejected fhe said case vide order dt. 25.8.2000 holdin^ that the recoimnendation made ia tfae order dt. 7.6.1983 was au observation of fbte leamed Industrial Court and as the same has been inei^ed in the order dt. 28.2.1991 passed by fhe ffigh Court in M.P.No.2792/ 1983 and that the application was tune ban-ed. Aggrieved by fhe above order fhe petitioner ffled Civil Appeal No. 218/MPIR Act/A-II/2000 beforc the Industrial Court which has been rcjected vide order dt, 20th Januaiy, 200 l holding ttiat fhe petitioner's appeal is hopelessly belated and tune barred, fhe petitioner inoved after 11 yeara aad that the appeal of the appeUant was dismissed by the Industrial Court and only reconimendatioa was made to take a lenieut view. Now by this writ petttion fhe petitioner has again chatlenged these two orders of the leamed Laboitr Court aad leamed Industrial Court aud prayed that siace fhe petitioner inoved fhe respondent/company for considering his representation with the prayer to comply with tlie direction of the Industrial Tribunal dt. 2.8.1983 and since no decision was taken by fhe respoudent/Compaay for a long tune, the petitioner was ffSIT / move to the leamed Labour Court, therefore there is ^d delay ia filing the petition. •). In the first instauce the petitioner was reinoved Iroin service in 1979 and since then 24 years have elapsed aud now this writ petition has been ffled ia which the conteutiou of the petitioner is that other einployees who were foiind in same lype of niisconduct were dealt with leniency and they were let offby imposing a penalty ofreduction in salai^^ fherefore, fhe petitioner ought to have also been dealt wifh, in the same maaner. 10. As mentioned above this point has already been considei'ed by fhe leamed Labour Court, leamed Industrial Court aad fh.e H^h Court and all fhe three courts have reached to the conclusion fhat the petitioner has not been able to show any discrimiuatiou in the niatter of awardiug puiushinent and now it is setfled law fhat fhe High Court or any Tnbuaal is not entifled to iaterfere with ti.ie puiushnient part offhe discretion of fhe Coiiipetent Authority aud the High Court cannot sit as appeUate Court in directmig the respondents for reduction ia salaiy, even it has been held by fhe Hon'ble Apex Court that fhe High Court is not reqiured to go into the details of the enquiry aad conclusion thereof if it has been conducted in a prescribed inanner. 11. In view of the above we are of fhe considered opinion that this writ petition is whoUy miscoaceived. it has no inerit and fhe sam.e is liable to be and is accordingly disinissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge