IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AR BILASPUR WRIT PETIT30N NO Q: ' 5 [2002 PETITIONER Y? un.INu.1WB BfLl L‘vumvX iamw "mm ouk kwa tamJ f? )f/g LN fumisnm OV AKA, STREH no.5 Wk $ECT0R-4, BHILA: NAGAmcG) VE RSUS 1. THE MANAGENG DIRECTOR STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. BHILAI STEEL PLANT BHILAI {c.G) LABOUR COURT UTTAI R0AD, DuRG (cg) iNDUSTRiAL COURT SHANKAR NAGAR RAIPUR (6.6) / . RESPONDENTS IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 22$ & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND IN THE MATTER OF MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL , \ {Oé absen’r due To injury. He joined the du’ry on 3/4'rh Ocfober, 1989 and was not allcwed To join Thereafter. The enquiry was held againsn‘ the pefitioner. The Addi’rional CPM (NW/LAW) agreeing with The enquiry, passed an order of removai of The petiiianer from service by order dated 15.5.1990 (Annexure P/4). Being aggrieved, the petitioner fiied an appiication before the Labour Court at Durg in Case No. 52/MPIR/91. The Labour Court by order dated 23.3.1994 (Annexure P/7) without considering the issue “as to whether the enquiry was invalid", came to the conclusion that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the charges found proved against the petitioner. Thus, in exercise of his powers under Section 107-A of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 converted the punishment of removal from service to withholding of the salary. The Labour Court accordingly directed reinstatement to the service without back wages. The Respondent Steel Plant filed an appeal before the Industrial Court, ’Raipur being Appeal No. 184/M.P.I.R./94. The Industrial Court by order dated 13.2.1995 (Annexure P/8) remanded back the matter and directed the Labour Court to decide the issue No-1 i.e. whether the enquiry was invalid, before deciding other issJes. Accordingly, the order dated 23.3.1994 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Lab‘our Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back for decision afresh la? affer deciding #he issue No—l i.e. whe‘iher' ’rhe enquiry was invalid. The Labour Cour'f adjudicai'ed on fhe issue No-1 i.e. whefher‘ The enquiry was invalid. The Labour Cour? by order daied 8.1.1996 heid fhai' fhe enquiry was vifia'ied and as such invalid. The Labour Cour‘r in its order dated 9.5.2000 (Annexure P/9) examined The material i’rself and came To The conclusion fha‘t the pefifioner had noT produced sufficient evidence To con‘irover‘l’ fhe allegafions of misconduct of remaining absem‘ from 4.7.1998 lo 25.1.1991. Since, The peTiTioner failed To produce sufficienT evidence sTaTing The reasons for remaining absen’r for a long period for abouT 167 days. The Labour CourT found ThaT The order daTed 15.5.1990 (Annexure P/4) passed by The respondenT No. 1 was valid and proper. Accordingly, applicaTion of The peTiTioner was dismissed. The IndusTrial CourT in Civil Apbeal No. 155/M.P.I.R. {A}II/2000 dismissed The appeal of The peTiTioner by drder daTed 3.11.2001 (Annexure P/11) confirming The order passed by The Labour CourT. The peTiTiOner has impugned The order daTed 3,112001 (Annexure P/11) on The ground 'ThaT once The, deparTmenTal enquiry has been found bad and invalid, The peTiTioner could noT have been denied The benefiT of reinsTaTemenT in service. The peTiTioner relies on The decision cf The Supreme CourT in The case of NeeTa Kaplish Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour CourT d; anoTher C4) (1999) 1 ILLJ 275 in support of his confen‘rion *haf once The enquiry has been found to be defective, The Tribunal can call upon The managemem‘ or' The employer To jusTify The gcTion Token ggainsT The workmen and To show by fresh evidence, ThaT The TerminaTion or dismissal order was proper. If The managemenT does noT lead any evidence by availing of This opporTuniTy, iT cannoT raise any grouse aT any subsequenT sTage ThaT iT should have been given ThaT opporTuniTy, as The Tribunal, in Those circumstances, would be justified in passing an award in favour of The workman. In The presenT case, The managemenT/employer was noT called upon To jusTify The punishmenT of removal from service, imposed on The peTiTioner afTer The enquiry was found bad and invalid, in view of The seTTle principle of law, as sTaTed above, The Labour CourT has noT called upon The managemenT/employer To jusTify iTs acTion of removal of The peTiTioner from service when admiTTedly The Labour CourT has found ThaT The enquiry was bad and invalid by order daTed 8.1.1996, which remains unchallenged and has aTTained finaliTy. 11. For The reasons sTaTed-above, The impugned order daTed 9.5.2000 (Annexure P/9) and order daTed 3.11.2001 (Annexure P/11) are seT aside and The respondenT No. 1 is direcTed To reinsTaTe The peTiTioner in service wiThouT back wages. No order as To cosTs. Sd/— Satjsh K. Agnihotri: ‘ Judge \A 10‘ Bablu