V ,,¢W.§ géma 2 , {\@> V _ r I IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS‘GARH JUDICATURE AT EILASPUR1C.G.[ . W P4” @7?/690Lhé:;—er PETITIONER- ‘ E‘ a PPLI CR‘n/‘I: , - : ( Chhattishgarh Develapment’Corporation Infrastructure Thrcugh Divisional Manager C.I.D.C. Bilaspur (C.G.) . VERSEs. ‘ ’ ‘ a gRESPONENT 1. iaxmi Prasad Pandey f ‘ r S/O RIO NarayanPandey Baniyapara Takhatpur Driver i px P10. TakhatpUr I x ‘ ,Eltsxtrté(\Bi'—'a§%%récd§a)\m /2. Presiding Officer ‘ State IndustrialW gawk , _ r :Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) , V/3. Presiding Officer _ - ‘ . Labor‘Co‘urt Biiaspur(C.G *: ’ . 9 ‘ r i .) 0/? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH z BILASPUR WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Avinash Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. O R D E R (Oral) Heard. (Passed on this 2331 day of February, 2010) 1. The petitioner — Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation has filed the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure P/ l), whereby the application of the petitioner for review of the order dated 6.5.2004, passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur in case No. 349/ 1994, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner has not filed the order dated 6.5.2004, passed by the Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Case No. 349/94, the review of which was sought for and the same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure P/ 1). 3. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent No.1 /employee was working on the post of Driver. After issuing charge sheet on 23. 1 l . 199 1 and conducting a departmental enquiry the services of the respondent No.1. was terminated on 30.12.1991. Being aggrieved the respondent No.1 filed an application before the Labour Court, Bilaspur on the ground that in the departmental enquiry he was not given proper opportunity to defend his case. The conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer were perverse and the punishment of removal from service was harsh. 4 . The Labour Court by order dated 15.9. 1994 (Annexure P/2) directed for reinstatement of the respondent No.1 in service with back wages and consequential benefits. 5. It is apparent that against the order dated 15.9.1994 (Annexure P/2) an appeal, being Case No. 349/94 was filed before the t Writ Petition (L) No. 879 of 2008 Petitioner Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Versus Respondents Laxmi Prasad Pandey 8a others 9J7 Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, which was partly allowed on 6.5.2004 and instead of full back wages only 50% back wages was directed to be paid to the respondent No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner/employer (W 313W m W %. gm —— 113nm? §H'W, W) flled a review , being Misc. Revision Case No. 104 / CGIR/ 1 1 1 / O4 before the Indu’strial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. The Industrial Court by the impugned order dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure P/ 1) dismissed the review petition finding no scope for review of the order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court, directing reinstatement of the respondent No.1 with back wages and consequential benefits, are not sustainable in law, as on the serious allegations a proper departmental enquiry was conducted by the petitioner. Thereafter, on the basis of the result of the enquiry it was decided to terminate the respondent No.1 from service. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.1 was an employee of the M.P.S.R.T.C. which was dissolved W.e.f. 31.122004 in View of the notification of the Central Government dated 27.12.2004. The petitioner being C.l.D.C., the respondent No.1 is not the employee of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is true that the respondent No.1 filed the application before the Labour Court, Bilaspur, challenging the order dated 30.12.1991, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (M. P. S. R. T. C.), inpleading the Deport Manager, M.P.S.R.T.C., Korba Depot as party respondent. It is not clear as to which corporation had filed the Appeal No. 349/94 before the Industrial Court, which was partly allowed on 6.5.2004. Further, it is not clear from the impugned order dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure P/ 1) asto whether the petitioner had raised such an issue that the respondent No.1 was employee of the M.P.S.R.T.C. therefore the C.I.D.C. is not liable to comply with the order passed by the Courts below. Undoubtedly, neither the petitioner ~ C.I.D.C. impleaded the ‘M.P.S.R.T.C.’ as arty 11“" " p respondent before the Industrial Court nor in the instant writ petition. 10. Even otherwise, the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner — C.I.D.C. is contrary to the pleadings’ According to the petitioner pursuant to the notification of the Central Govt. dated 27.12.2004 the M.P.S.R.T.C’ was dissolved on 31.12.2004 and the C.I.D.C. was created, but it is not clear asto how before dissolution of the M.P.S.R.T.C., which was the sole respondent before the Labour Court and Industrial Court, the petitioner was created and filed review application before the Industrial Court, which was dismissed by order dated 21.7.2004. 11. Since the order dated 15.9.1994, passed by the Labour Court and the orders dated 6.5.2004 and 21.7.2004, passed by the Industrial Court were passed before creation of the C.I.D.C. i.e. 31.12.2004, the submission of the petitioner that the C.I.D.C. is not liable to comply with the orders passed by the Courts below, is not sustainable, as the C.I.D.C. was not the respondent. However, the issue, asto Whether the petitioner, being Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, is liable to comply with the order or not, cannot be decided in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. So far as the merits of the case on hand are concerned, during the pendency of the application filed by the respondent No.1 challenging the order of termination, the Labour Court considered it proper to decide the issue No.1, as to whether the departmental/home enquiry conducted by the petitioner/ employer was legal and proper ? (W m Hi W Hi1 Tl'dT 11—6 G113 @Ef W mere ?). 13. The above issue No.1 was decided by order dated 31.5.1994 in the affirmative. Thereafter, it was found that despite grant of sufficient opportunity, the petitioner/employer failed to bring any such facts, documents or evidences before the Labour Court to prove the misconduct on the part of the respondent No.1. Thus, by the fmal order dated 15.9.1994, it was rightly held by the Labour Court that the petitioner/employer had completely failed to prove that the respondent No.1 was guilty of any of the alleged misconduct and accordingly the order of termination from service Iv a. Qé dated 30.12.1991 was found as illegal. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent No.1 with back wages and consequential benefits. 14. It is evident that the appeal was partly allowed and the review was dismissed by the Industrial Court, finding no scope for interference. 15. The Supreme Court in Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another Vs. Praven Kumar Singhl observed that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be restrictive in the sense that it is to be invoked only to correct errors of jurisdiction, perversity in the order. 16. It is well—nigh established that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any scope for interference with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- L Satish K. Agnihotri‘r Judge 1 (2006) 3 scc 312