'i\ ^^^ :"?-%/x • -^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 W.P.(Art 2271 No. ? ^ ? O of 2009 PETITIONER /:: Tarakram Verma, son of Shri Nankuram Verma, aged about 48 years, resident of Tata Line, Kohka, P.0. Kohka, Bhilai, Thana-Supela, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Permanent Address-Village Pavantara, Post ^ ' U " ^Jalbandha, Tahsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS :1) Managing Director, Simplex Casting Ltd.; Nandini Road, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) ...<^^ y :iw' .y ,%.-'-^' y <cg) ^- / •s. /. ^^-^' :2) Manager Trishul Industries; Industrial State-10, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 9 9 IS ? ?3",,a(-EC~»!. I j '¥g?S3%, 3 -SM^ -w^<y HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARII ATBILASPyR !l(!'!f KSr WRIT PETITION (227) No. i3l0_c)jjl0a9 PETITIONER Tarakram. Verma. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Managing Director, Simplex Casting Ltd. & Another. WRIT_PmiTIQNUNDEE^!mCLE221.0tLTHE_CONST^ INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn, J, Present: ShriH.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. ORDER(ORAL) (Passedon 06th dayofApril, 2011) . !. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quasbing ol'fhe order dated 30.11.200 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Labour Court, Durg in Case No. 89/MPIR/94. and the order dated 13.04.2006 (Annexure P/7), passed by the State Industrial Court, Raipur, ih C.A.No. 8/M.P.I.R. Act/A-II/2001. In altemative, to reniit back the case for recording evidence on misconduct or in lieu of reinstatement, compensation alongwith unpaid salary and bonus for the month of May, 1994 and further, remstafementwith ful! backwages. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioncr is that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Helper with the respondent No. 1 on 12.08.1988 and had worked till 18.09.1989. Thereafter, on 18.09.i989, the petitioner met with an accident and he v/as directed to work underthe respondeat No. 2 w.e,/ 22.10.21990 as Security Gaard. Due to iliness, the petitioner could not attend the duty from 20.05.1994 to 21.05.2994, and thus, the petitioner was not allowed to join the duty on 22.05.1994. The claim of the petitioner is that he has neither beeii paid the yeariy bonus tior (he :lui^ »„'< tp d^ 5. 6. 2 salary forthe month ofMay, 1994. No show cause notice orcharge sheet was issued before removing him from service. Shri'Agrawal, iearned senior counsel wifh Smt. Meera laiswal. learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that against the illegal removal, the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court, Durg, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2000. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Industrial Court, Raipur which was also dismissed confinning the order passed by the Labour Court. On the other hand, Shri Shulda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that the Courts below have considered the facts and materials available on record in its proper perspective and the deposition ofthe witnesses, the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was negligent in his duties and had committed misconduct at several times. The courts below have also reeorded that even at the time of theft of the company's property, the petitioner was discharging the duty of Chowkidar and was found sleeping. Thus, the courts below have rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioaer. Even otherwise, the lower appellate court has specifically held that the respondent No. 1 and 2 are different entities and the service rendered by the petitioner in respondent No. 1-company cannot be calculated to assess his length of service and the respondent No. 1 has unnecessarily been mipieaded as party. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On perusal of the orders passed by the Industrial Court, it is evident that the petitioner did not approaeh the Labour Court with <r--, iir 'to clean hands as he had concealed material facts with regard to the incident oftheft which occurred due to his negligence in duty. The appellate court has further observed that there was absolutely no pleading with regard to completion of 240 days service in a year by the petitioner before the Labour Court and there was nothing on record to show that the case ofthe petitioner attracts the provisions of section 25-F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947'). The appellate court has also taken into consideration the statement adduced by the defence witnesses namely Karan Bahadur and Krishna Bahadm- who have categorically stated that the petitioner was in the habit of coming late on his duty and was fourid sleeping at the duty hours. Even at the time oftheftin the respondent No. 2-company, the petitioner was found sleeping. Thus, both the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that for serious misconduct of dereliction of duty, punishment of dismissal is proper. The petitioner has nuserably failed to establish the factthat he had worked for 240 days in a year, particularly in the precedmg year. The .petitioner had also concealed the fact of other negligence and misconduct which has been specifically noticed by the Industrial Court, as aforestated. Thus, the question ofinvoking compliance of provisions of section 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 does not arise in the instant petition. The petition is meritless. The Supreme Court, in-Abdul Razak (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Others , observed as under: 21...There have been several other instances in which different High Courts have passed orders in exercise 2010 AIRSCW 1414 (T-. Q^i/ & » : ofpower under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India disregarding the limitations identifled and indicated by this Coiirt in several decisions on the exercise of that power. We hope and trust that in fiiture the High Courts would keep in view the limitations of certiprari jurisdicfion/ supervisory jurisdiction and reftain from deciding the writ petitions flled under Article 226 or petitions/applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution as if they are adjiidicating appea.ls flled against the orders ofthe lo-wer courts or other judicial/quasi-jtidicial bodies/authorities." 9. The ratio laid down in the aforestated case has been referred with approval in Shalini Shyara Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil2. 10. In the case on hand, no jurisdictional error,infirmity or irregularity has been pointed out. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constifution of India, is not iaclihed to interfere with the impugned orderwhich is legal.just and proper. 11. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihoiri Judge '>... <T Amit (2010) 8 SCC 329