.ss-'.u^^^.y*^ %. ^ {^-f ^\tfoV- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRITPETITIONNO n^B6 /2003 MANAGING DIRECTOR Steel Authority oflndia Limited Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Vrs. RESPONDENTS 1) 0.9-: ,^y '^^" ^' ^ 2) ^ 3) G.RAJGOPALAN Quarter 11/B, Street.32, Bhilai, Distt, Durg(CG) The President Industrial Court Chhattisgarh, Distt, Raipur. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, District Durg. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE DIRECTION/ORDER ETC. 9.3 q HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3586 of2003 Petitioner : Managiag Director Steel Aufhorily of India Limited Versus Respondents : G, Rajgopalaii & offaers Sta^e Bencli: Hon^te Mr. Justice Satisli K. Agniliotel. Shri P.S. Nair, Senior counsel with Shri P.S. Koshy, counsel for the Petitioner. Shri G. Rajgopalan, Respondent No. 1 ia ^rson. ORAL ORDER (17th Februaiy, 2006) The facts mi nutshefl are fhat the rcspondent No. 1 joined fhe ^titioner>s plaot as Electnciaii on 19.1,1961 to attend repair of xiiachiD^eries and other e^tdcal eqiupments. The respondent No. 1 was served a charge-sheet dated 10,5,1972 (Annexurc P-1) for disobeyiag orders of fhe serdor officers. In fhe departmental enquiry, the charges werc proved, Pursuaat to fhat penalty of rcduction to lower post of Electrician Grade-II was imposed by order dated 13.6.1973 (Annexure P-2). The rcspondent No. 1 has agaia served a charge-sheet dated 8.5.1975 (Annexure P-3), contauiiag fhree charges, namely : firstty, gtdlly of coininittuig acts of wiUful icisubonlia.ation and disobedience of lawful aad reasonable onders of his superiors in as much as fhe respondent No. 1 refused to s^ti on fhe W/oflfchaage paper on 5.4, 1975 changing his W/ofiFfix>mi Sunday to Tuesday aad reported for duty on fhe W/off days on 22nd and 29dl April 1975 against fhe orders of his shift Inchai^e, secondly, fhe respondent No. 1, while workic^ as Electriciaa Grade-II was guilty of disorderly aad iadecent behavior subversive of discipUne and thirdty, he was guilty of conunittmg breach of law (^ applicable to fhe works which is aa act of ixdsconduct under S.O, No. 29 (xx). The departmental enquixy was hel4_and all fhe charges were found proved against the nespondeiit No. 1, Accordiiigly, piinishTiient of termmation by oider dated 1.7.1976 (Aanexure P-4) was unposed on fhe respondent No. 1. 3, The Labour Court by order dated 9.10.1980, ia an application fiQted by fhe respondent No. 1, directed rciastatement wifh 50% ofback wages. The Industrial Court by order dated 26.6.1982, in an appeal, modified fhe order and allowed fhe appeal to fhe exteut of grant of full back wages. 4. The respoadent No. 1 was ^sued a charge-sheet on 21»3.1987oa fhe foUowing charges :- stl. WiUfiil and habitual absence J&om duty wifhout leave or witihout suflScient cause. 2. WiUful iasubordiDation or disobedience to aay lawful and reasonable onler ofa superiox^, The proper enquiiy was held and pursuant to fhe enquiry, sendces of the respondent No. 1 was termiaated wifh ixmxiediate eflFect by order dated 29.8.1987 (Annexure P-10). 5. The respondent No, 1 filed an appUcation before fhe Labour Court under Section 31 (3) rcad with Section 61 ofthe M.P.I.R. Act. 1960, mipi^nmg tfae tenmnation order dated 29.8.1987, seekmg a direction that the respondent No, 1 be rcinstated wifh full back wages and other consequential benefits. The respondent No. 1 further chaUenged fhe iaipugned teniunation order on fhe ground that fhe termiaation order was issued by fhe Superintendent, Orc Handling Plant, who was not the competent authority aad jxinior to the General Maiiager, who was llie competent authority. The Labour Court vide its onler dated 31.3.20CK) (Annexure P-16) aUowed fhe application directiag reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 without back wages 8. on fhe gTound fhat fhe iDipugaed order passed by fhe Superintendent, Ore Handlmg Plant as invaUd as fhe ojGBcer was not fhe coinpetent aufhority to pass the tenmnation order. The competexit oflBcer was General Manager (presenffy fhe Managmg Director). Beidg ^grieved, the petitioner as weU as the respondent No. 1, bofh filed appeal being Civfl Appeal No. 115/M.P.LR./A/II/2000 and Civil Appeal No. 110/M.P.I.R./A/II/2000 rcspectivefy before fhe Industrial Court. The Industrial Court by its coixmion oxder passed ia Civil Appeal No. 115/M.P.I.R./A/II/2000 filed by the petitioner, CiyU Appeal No. 110/M.P.I.R./A/II/^)00 filed by the rcspondent No. 1 held as under:- "However if the eniployer stBl sticks to his contentfon fhat the emLployee has attamed age of super-axinuation fhen the optiion is given to him to pay Rs. 400,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs) by way of back wages and Rs. 2CK),000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) by way of pensionaiy benefits to fhe exciployee. This option is given to fhe eiaployer considermg fhe fact that for fhe last about 30 yeara lit^ation is gomg on between fhe two, axid fhe fhings seem to be irreconcilabte, which is not a healfhy system. for iiidustrial place. On payment of fhis lum.p suin aiaoiint of Rs. Six Lacs by exnployer to the employee, wifhia 30 days j5x>m fhis oider bofh of fhem wfll get rid offix>m each ofher and no one woiild have any claiai against each ofher fhereaftex^. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner subinits that fhe respondent No. 1 has siiflfered for a tong period aad fhe Industrial Court has given a qiuetus by passing fhe above-stated order. The calculatfon of payment ofback wages to the tune of Rs. 400,000/- aod pensionaiy benefits to Rs. 200^000/«are hunp sum and just and proper. Shri G. Rajgopalan/resix>ndent No. 1, appearing m person coiitended fhat fhe respondent No. 1 has been retired on 31.5.1997 when the respondent No. 1 ought to have retired subsequenfly m fhe year 2007. No foundation has been laid to prove the age of retirement eifher by fhe respondent No. 1 or by fhe petitioner beforc ffads Court as well as before fhe aufhonties below aad tihis question was also not addrcssed by fhe aufhorities below. The date of birffa of fhe respondent No. 1 was not determined by fhe aufhorities below. 9. In fhis writ petition under Article 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India, fhe age of fbe respondent No, 1 caimot be detenmned by pennitting fhe aufhorities to adduce firesh evidence, which is not pennissible ia law. 10. Haviag heard learaed counsel for fhe parties and havi&g perused fhe papers appended to fhe pleadiags, I am offhe view fhat the Industodal Court has taken overaU decision ia view of the conduct of fhe petitioner Le, not obeyiag ftie orders passed earfier aad siifferao.ee of the respondent No. 1/eniployee ia just and equitabte maxuier aad as such it does not caU for any iaterference at this stage ia exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 11. Accordiagly the petition is dismissed. No order as to coste, Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge