sssefSSs.^i^i^sisSS^S^:':^..^. (B fcl 6 3 o & •H W «. C» IB c: ®-\ a> e a 1-1 A<J •i-i e> I!, +',-". 1 +>* s' f |m tt'o'y Q S 61 .- fcp s ft CT' G 3 •K 'Ch h firj T^ (O m n ?!-,H h i^ V £ §t° t<.0 •^s > td •o»o t?S.-!-< <cSQ '•w- "f' 5 A" »< •av Jl^ MSirt .(3 (3 ^' """ <w; &1 5^§§3 •g *"< a te' u3 9. W \" S Si 'W&icaJ «t fe^ s» £!e*, -^^-^•^ ati,att* [A I S( lu( x^.^ ...Sl ••miSlM£a.kv^^-^^^,,iSi;iriwTJJ&.j,' ff^ « ^ai A/r^ i^---'' 2§)-^'D7 HIGH CQURT QFCHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 442 of 1990 $3 Ftetitioner Vireiidra Smgh Naikadi Versus Respondents Chliattisgarh Iiifi^^tructure Development Corporation Ltd. & anothcr Siqjg^e Beach: Hon'bfc Mr. Justfcc Satish K. Agnifcotri. SJtiri I'.S. Koahy, Advocatc with SIiri Viaod Ucslunukh, Adyocate for fhe Petitioner. Shri B. D. Guru, Advocate for fhe Respondent No. l. <>i( ORDER { P&sscd on this 28th day ofFebniaiy, 2007) The present petition fited under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India challenges the validity of the oider dated 11.9.1989 (Anaexure D) passed by fhe ludustrial Court/respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 16/MPIR Act/86. The undisputed facts, ia iiutsbell, are fhat fhe petitioner was appointed as Conductor in fhe erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporatiou in the year 1985 aad was posted at Chindwada Depot. Tbe petitioner was terminated fix>ra serricc vide order dated 13.5.1987 under the piovision of Slanding Order 11 (A), as the petitioner remamed absent from duties on 10.5.1987 aad for fhe period 24.3.1987 to 30.4.1987 Le. total 38 days fae remaiaed absent without getting the leave sanctioned. Beiag aggiieved, the petitioner inoved aa application under Section 31 (3) of fhe Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relatioas Act, 1960 before 'fhe Labour Court. Ttie Labour Court, afier having considered all fhe E ?1 lafc. •.:1» 8. facts, came tQ fhe coaclusion fhat uo enquuy was conducted befoie passiug ffae order of termination. and fhe petitioner was not given opportunily ofhearins. The respoadent No. 1 has fafled to prove any misconduct against the petitioner aad auy justification for tennmatmg him flxim. services. In view of that, the Labour Court by order dated 12.12.1987 (Annexure Q found that the order of termmation. was iUegal aad iinproper aud accordingly, directed fhe respondent No. l to reinstate the ^titioner on fhe post of fhe Conductor with back wages. Being aggrieved by fhe orderdated 12.12.1987 passed by fhe Labour Court iu Case No. 3062/MPIR - 1/87, the respondent No. 1 fited an appeal against the order of Fem.stateiaent and graut of back wages, bemgAppeal No. 16/MNR Act/86. The Industrial Court, after haviug conaidered the caaes of bofh. the parties, by order dated 11.9.1989 (Annexure D) quashed the order passed by the Labour Court hohling that fhe peti.tion.er had faifcd to produce any pleading for unauttiorized absence of 38 days which coines wifhia fhe purview of gcave miscnnduct. Tfae Labour Court has cominitted error iu relying on the evideuce offhe petitioner wifhout any pleading. Shri P.S. Koshy, learaed counsel appearing for fhe petitmner submits that admittedly, the petitioner was not aEforded opportanKy of hearing and no enquiry was conducted before passing fhe termination order. Shri B. D. Guru > feamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, per contra, submjts tbat fhe petitioner was rightty teniunated, invoking fhe provisions ofStanduig Oider 10(A). I have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties aad perused fhe records appended to the petitkin and retum, In the facts and circumstances of the case, when fhe petitioner was not afforded proper opportiuiity of hearing andjno cnquiiy was held, tea a• -)M •a •Ife^ i:aa '!ss^ si:a -i--'- ^ ^lsiii^£^isi ^j;!;'i'irfr;;^ the termmation orderdated 13.5.1987 (Annexure A) cannotbe held as legal and just 9. Be that as it may, since fhe petitioner was not giveu opporttmity of hearing and no enquuy was conductEd, ia the facts and circ'umstanccs, it is a clear case of violation of principles of natural justice aad as such it is utmecessary to go into the inerits of fhfi contentions raised by fhe respondeat No. 1. 10. Leamed counsel appeariag for fhe petitioaer cited a decision of this Court m tfac casc of Ramesh Kamar Sahu Vs. C. G. Infrastnictm-e Deveiopmeat Corporatiea Ltd. & otliers {2006 (2) C.G.L.J. 197) aad subiaits fhat the facts aad question oflaw involved in that case are identical to that offhe caae in hand. 11. Learaed counsel appearmg for fhe respoudent No. 1 would submit fhat it is true that the facts ofthe present case are ideuticat to the facts of fhc casc ofRanesh Knmar Sahn (supra). Howcvcr, ttiat casc has not coasidered the objection of the respoadent No. 1 with regard to the noa-unpleadment of fhe Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corpoiation (MPSRTC) as a necessary party. It is further submitted fhat fhesaid issue was not raised in that petition.- He stated fhat fhe liability of the einployees who had retired froia the places, which fall today withia fhe temtorial jurisdiction of fhe State of Chhattisgarh, has been transferFed to tfae respondent No. 1 t>y Piotifeation dated 13.12.2(X)2, which reads as uader:- *r ^Effip V? 6-8 ^(R/02-Wm %RF:[ *'*ftJlU^;il '•<iu?I iRS'p 4ft4gri fwf ^ R'Ntut'i ^ itx'i'w'i'iy W?I ?t^ 'iTTeft Sfffepff, 'Srf?K'T, <st!Ei<t>lS Tpf 'r)*?i!ilR^1' (T^, SlRtHPI q5^4 t^ Uctft-yiti 3K4S'ti''!T4'1t %55RI ^TT i?t 3[&i^[ iTwIT t 'S'SQ R'Hlul-1 ^ 'Oim ^4 'iCT^ cl^lR^' ^ift ^<iT 5(3 'iyfl.'yt'i UiOTl'W-lld SSlitTi^d f^iRRt 'f? i, ^ Wlpft '?N^. Silfeprf l^ 'stfc^ ^ wf-i ^m <ti^\ S ^ '^v^s ipt *t4iit^l ';?PBT gRH sre 'iH'TO-WFI Vi uifS Pi'&il TFT 'ftRl^iT ^ 3^.54 qft uit^'fl 1 " i.t ffltiiisaitKai ;.>i3' 12. 13. Thakur ••'II^W^ 4 ^ From. fhe readixig offhe said notificatioa it is clear'ttiat fhe liabflity wifh rcgard to the service coaditiou of ftie pctitioner, which may accnie, has beea teansferred to fhe respondent No.l on 27.12.2002. Thus fhe coatention of fhe respondent No.l with regaid to fhe non-unpleadment ofthe M.P.S.R.T.C. is rejected. In view of aforementioned reasons aad the decisioa of fhis Court in fhc casc ofRamesh Kumar Sahn (supra), this pctition is aflowcd. Thc impu©ied order dated 11.9.1989 (Annexuie D) passed by fhe Industrial Court/respondeut No. 2 in Appeal No. 16/MPIR Act/86 is set aside and quashed. Tto order as to costs. -—,—— Sd/- Satish K.AgHJholri 'e '^.