3 NI .^1 Before Hon'ble Hlgh Coart of Chhattlsgarh at Bllaspur (GG) Wrlt Petitlon No ^ !_? 2002 Petitloner ResBondent M.L. DROMKAR s/o Late L.G. Dronkar aged about 72 years Ex - Assistant Heater Saking - Pit Bloomlng And Billet Mlll Bhilai Steel Plant (Hlndustan Steel Limited) Steel Authority of India Lialted Bhilai Nagar, Tah. and Dlstt. DURG (CG) r/o Block No 2A Strest - 34 Sector - 4 Bhilai Nagar, Tah. and Distt. DURS (CG). versus - STEEL AUTHORITf OF INDIA LIMITED Through :-Managing-Director Bhilai Steel Plant Steel Authortty of India Limlted Ispat-Bhawan Bhilai Nagar Tah. and Distt. GURG CGG ) !\- Contd hrNhii i 'w // 2 // PETITION UNDER ARTIO.ES 22»7227 OF THE CONSTITOTION OF INBIA Partl^yil.aaa € w—= HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH : BtLASPUF Single Bencn: Hon'bie Shri Manjndra Mohan Shrivastava, J, WRITPETiTiON 2817/02 PETITIONER RESPONDENT M.L. Dronkar Steel Authority of India Limited WRlT_FETmQN UNDER_ARTiCLES 226/227 OF THE CONSiTUTiON OF JNDjA Present: - Shri Shaiiendra Soni, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Shailendra Shukla, counsel for the respondent. OitAi-ORDER {Passed on 22"d of November, 2011) This writ petition has been fiied by the petitioner praying for reiiefs that the Poiice Report (Security Reasons) kept in the service records or the petitioner be cailed for and quashed by appropriate writ and further prayer has been made to direct the respondent to give aii consequential benefits to the petitioner as If he was 'n service tiii attaining the age of superannuation. 2. The facts v/hich are stated in the writ petition go to show that the petitiQner was employed as Assistant Heater in the Roiiing iviilis of Bhiiai Steei Piant. in November 1960, he proceeded on ieave for twenty-two days but did not resume his duties on the expiry of the period. ThereTore, he moved an appiication for extension of leave upto 30/12/1860 on the ground of iiiness but the extension was not granted and discipiinary action was initiated by issuing a notics on account of unauthorized absence which was repiied by the petitionsr. On 19/12/1960, the services of the petitioner were ferminated. The petitioner chaiienged the order of termination by niing an application before the Labour 1111 l;tl ,<rr^ Court. The order of termination was upheid by the Labour Court, however, direction was given for payment of ihree months' wages to the petitioner. On a revision being preferred before the Industriai Court, the industriai Court iook a view that the order of termination was not maiafide but the order couid not be upheid as ihe peiitioner, at no point of time, was informed regarding the reasons for termination of his services though the fndrstrial Court finally held that the sep/ices of the petiiloner were terminated bonafide for Security Reasons. Therefore, it would not be proper to order relnstatement in sen/ice. Prayer for reinstatement was therefore rejected by the Industriai Court and compensation of Rs.1,500/"- in iieu of reinstatement was awarded. ^ 3. The petitloner then approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by fiiing a writ petition under Anicle 226/227 of the CoRstitution of India registered as M.P.No.392/'1a65. The said writ petition was aliowed in part and it was dec.'ared that the petitioner was entitied to back wages and aliowances in respect of the period from 19/12/1960 io 24/7/1a65. The High Court however upheid the order of the industrial Court to the extent it refused reinstatement ofthe petitioner in service. in the year 2002, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner stating that fhe petitioner had obtained the reievant extract of the rscords which contained poiice report which was made a basis for termiRason of his services. 4. Shri Shailendra Soni, iearned counsel for ihe petitioner argued that the basis for termination of services of ihe petitioner was a poiice report and it was this po'iice report which acted to his grave prejudice. Therefore, the same shouid have been communicated to him and opportunity of hearing shouid ha\re|been '•^a;.:;.^ (g) given. He submits that on account of this iilegaiity, the termination is iiiegal and therefore, the petltioner shouid be freated to be in service through out and aii benefits shouid be given to him with consequenfiai benefits. 5. On the other hand, iearned counsei for the respondent submits that ihe present writ peiition is barred by principies of res judicata in addinon it beins hopelessly barred by limitation. The dispute has besn finaiiy set at rest by ths order or the High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed on 18/08/1966 in K4.P. No.392/65. He submlts that now ihe petitioner has again raised the same Issue which couid not be gone into. He further submits that the petitloner has sought to challenge in the writ pention, the action of his termination in the year 1960. 'herefore, the present wrrt petition Is compieteiy misconceived under the iaw. 6. in ihe writ petition, the petitioner has cieariy stated t'nat he was terminated m the month of December, 1960 against which, he had taken remedy before the 'rEbunai / Labour Court. Thereafter, the matter was taken to industria! Court. Both the Labour Court as weii as the industriai Court refused io order reinstatement ihough certain compensation was awarded. When the matter was taken to the High Court, the writ petition was partly aliowed to the extenf of payment of back wages for certain period. As far as order of refusing reinstetement is concerned, ths same was upheid by the High Court. On the face of it, the dispute betwesn the parties on the Issue reiating to validity of termination of pstiiioner's ser/ice, attained nnaiity. Therefore, the same issue eouid.not be raised by the petitioner by fiiing a fresh writ petition !n the year 2002 in the garb of disciosure of poiice report from his sen/ice record. a, - ^i?it. •"<.jg<-Efc' .,'- - ff^"" 7. To my mind, the writ petition is misconceived and barred by principtes of resjudicata. The dispute reiating to termination of ssrvices of the petitioner as between the parties, having been decided in various Fora and having attained Tinaiity, does not give the petitioner a fresh cause of action to again fiie a writ petition challenging the same and praying for reiiefwhsch was ofths nature which couid be granted oniy after recording a finding thai ihe termination ofthe sen/foes were bad and that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages and consequentiai benefits. In terms of order dated 18/08/1966 passed by the High Court, the petitioner is only entitied to back wages and allowanee in respect of the period from 19/12/1 960 to 24/07/1965. 8. I do not find any merit in this petition. The petiiioner iherefore is liabie to be dismissed and is accordingiy dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge