INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION ^S02-12005 Petitioner Respondents /' Mithilesh Kumar, Aged about 40 years R/o C-38 Sonadih Cement Plant Colony, Lafarge India Ltd, Post: Raseda, Via: Baloda Bazar, Dist. Raipur (CG) President, State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. M/.s Lafarge India Ltd, Through its Vice President Sonadih Cement Plant, Sonadih, Post: Raseda, Via: Baloda Bazar, Dist: Raipur (CG) Writ Petition under Article226 and 227 of the Constitutionof India IMI ^" ^-iM^ ro yi'WC' -! '^ ^- s y ^ t ff' ^' <:,- (i ,- <:: r- T'1R7V •../ •_ ii. C-i h » (t ^^ ZK £°a •'n ! ^'-.1. ;'^ % ^ AF<' HI6H COURT OF JUNCATURE WHATnSGAKH: BILASPUR Single Banch: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. W. P. No. %02 of ZCWS Petittoner : Mi'Hiitesh Kumar Versus Respondents : President, State InchjstrialCourt', Oihattisgarh, Raipur <md olhers Shri 6ary AAukhopacfcyay, counsel for Ihe petitioner. Shri N.K. ^l'fws, counsel for the respondent No. 2. (Passed on 51tl day uf February. 2007) 1. The petitioner vws initially cppointed as Sub-Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Force during the period 1988-1993. In the year 1993, the petitioner uws tppointed as Assistont Officer (Security) by M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., (Cement Oivision) ond was posted at Plont Sonadih (now Lafarge India Ltd.) by the <ypointment order dated 13.8.1993 (Annexupe P/3). Tte soud company wias purchased by the re^pondent No. 2-Compony with effect from 1.11.1999. Accordingly, service of the petitioner was also transferred to the reqiondent No. 2-Compony. It t»usaJteged that -ttie petitioner had misbehaved and atteinpted to molest one - minor girl, namely, Ku. Paltavi on 23.8.2(X)0. The complaint to thot effect was lodged after a period of one month, on 22.9.2000 (Annexure P/5). The req)ondent No. 2/employer having come to know of the alteged incident initiated "the deparhnen'tat enquiry after service of a proper charge-sheet to -the petitioner. On •the basis of the enquiry. wherein the alteged charge-sheet was found proved, the petitioner was terminated from his services by the order dated 16n April, 2001 with effect from 20t11 April. 20)1. 2. The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred an application before the Labour Court'. Raipur for the retief of reinstatement wrtii back wages on the ground that •tfie departmental enquiry was viticrted as no proper opportunily of bearing was afforded to the ctelinquent (petitioner). The Labour Court. by the order dort'ed 24.9.2003, hetd that the depart'mental enquiry against the petitioner was bad and invalid. It was held that no misconduct altegedty committed by the petitioner has been found proved. It was further held that the charge of molestation of a minor g1rt m the residential colony wos not found proved. The Labour Court set aside the order of termination ond directed reinstatement in service without back wages. 3. Against +he order dated 24.9.2(X)3, possed by the Labour Court, the employer/req>ondent No. 2 filed on appeal before the Industrwl Court, Chhattisgarh, Ra^>ur, being Appeal No. 35/C.6.I.R.Act./A-II/2005, chaltengBig the order of reinstatement. The petitioner also filed an appeal before the Industrinl Court, Chhattisyirh, ftoiipur, being Appeal No. 38/C.6.I.R.Act/A-n/2005, challengmg the order of denwl of back woges. The Industrial Court', by •the order dated 26 September, 2005 (Annexure P/l), held that misconAict altegedly committed by the petitioner has not been found proved. Even otherwise, the said alleged conduct does not involve morol •hirpitude asto disturb industrkxl discipline. The Ifldustrial Court- oeoBrdingty confirmed the finding of the Labour Court with regard to holding of the depart'mental enquiry as bqd. However, without assigning cny reasons, allowed -the appeal of the reipondent No. 2-Compony pcu-tly by directing that -the employer should either reinstate the employee on the same post or should puy Rs. 2 lakks ns compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the employee. The cppeal of -the petitioner for grant of back woges was dismissed. 4. I honre heard leamed counsel appearing for the porties, perused the pleadings and documents oppended Ihereto. On perusal of the documents, it appears that the enquiry has been held as bad by both the Courts/Tribuncls below and •the alleged misconduct has also not been found proved. Thus, consequential relief woutd be reinstatement in service. The Industriat Court by gnmting option to the employer has committ'ed error as no reasons has been assigned for exercise of option to pay a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs in lieu of reinstatement. According to feamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner has worked only for 9 years and has still 21 years teft. The grtwit of Rs. 2 Lakhs would not be sufficient to make bo1+i ends meet. 5. It is we.tt sett-led •thot the High Court' exercising of judicial review under Art'icle 226/227 of -Hie Constitution of India does not ect as an Appettate Au'thority. Its ^irisdiction. is circumscribed ond confined to correct errors of hw or procechiral error, if ony, resulting in manifest miscarpiage-of ^istice or violation ofpruiciples of natunl justice. Thus, the grant of reinstatement wwuld be the proper order to subserve interest of justice. Jn the facts ond circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages. 6. As & result and for the reasons-stated hereinabove, this petition is atlowed to the extent of ^rant of reinstatenwnt. No order as to costs. Bablu