^&^ ^'^ss^^' &3,ri- VKs ^"rfia ^ v.1-'"""^. .-•»" ff<^^^- '^••^^ (-^(^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JCDICATURE AT Bl£SSPrUR(C.G.l WritPetitionfLlNo. 2^ ?5^72008 PETITIONER: ^ Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Shastri Chowk, G.E. Road, Through its Managing Director Raipur VERSUS RESPONDENTS: ^-1. Basant Sonkar S/o Punitram Sonkar, Aged about 4Q years, R/o Vyas Talab, Birgaon, Raipur (C.G.) /2. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Through: Director, Head Office, Habibganj, Bhopal(M.P.) /3. The Chhattisgarh State Industrial Court, Raipur Through its Regisfrar ^-4. The Presiding Officer, Laboi-ir Court,Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITIONUNDERARTICLE 236/2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASnjR Writ Pfctition (U No. 2557 of2008 Petitioner ChhattisgaFh Infi'^tructure Developmcnt Coiporation Versus ' • Respondents Basant Sonkar & ofhers WRFT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE coNsrrrunoN OF iNEffiA ,' (SB; Hon'bk Shri Satish K. ^iihotri J.) Shri Ratan Pusly, Advocate for fhe petitioiier. SIiriN. N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforfhe State. ORJDBRKlran (Passed onfhis 18th dayofPebruaiy, 2010) Heaid. 1. The ^etitioner/cmployer by this petition underArticlc 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India, impugas fhe order dated 25.6.2007 (Aanexure P/4), passed by the Latoour Court, Raq>ur in Case No. 1/A/01/M.P.I.R./2003 (Basant Sonkar Vs. M.P.S.R.T.C. & ofhcra) as weB as fhe order dated 19.12.2007 (Aimexure P/5), passed by fhe Iiuiustnal Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in CivU Appeal No. 58/C.G.I.R.Act/A/11/2007. 2. Brief facte, in nuteheU, are fhat the respondent No.l/eaiployee was appoiated on the post of Coaductor in April, 1985. After conductmga departmcntal enquiiy tfae semces of thc respondent No.l. wastermmated on 26.12.2002. Being t^®rieved the respondent No.l fited an applieation before the Lsfcour Co'urt, Raipur on fhe groiind fhat the departmental enquiiy -was conducted by the petitioner hurriedly, he was not piowMed vn& fhe copy of rekvant documents and aflier T^ult Of the departmentat enquiiy, second show causc notice w^ not givento •* hjm. Wlfh.outaER>»dMigpn»pcropportiuutyQfltearingtodefendhis case, fhe sendces of the respondent No.l was tenntaated. The Labour Court by order dated 25.6.2007 (Aancxuic P/4) directed fbr reinstateineat of fhe respondent No. 1 iu service witiiout back wagcs. 3. ^amst fbe order dated 25.6.2007 (Annesuue P/4) thc petifibner/employer, filed the appeal chaltenguq; the osder of •rj-;^^ .stsa 8. ^. reitistatexaent of the respoxident No.I. The respoadent No. l/cm.ployec ateo filcd a separate appeal clanning backw^es. The Indastdal Court by common oidcr dated 19.12.2007 (Annexure P/5) disinissed botti thc afore-stated appealsand upheM fhe oiderdated 25.6.2007, passedby fhe Latoozir Courfc Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner subiaite fhat fee impugned orders passed by -Qae Labour Court as wcH as IIie Industdal Ctourt, duBcting reinstatement of fhe respondent No. l te not sustamabte ia law, as on the scrious aHcgations a piqpcr departmental cnquay was conducted by fhe petitioner. Thereafter, on fhe basis ofthe result offhe enquiry it was heM to terminate fhe respondent No. 1 •fix>HL serrtce. Leamed counsel ftirther submits fhat even if some naerit was found iu fhe case of the Respondent No.l, fhe Courts betow ought to have duccted for paymeat of compensation, instead of direetu^ lite remstatemeat inscmce. I Iiave hcaid leanied couasd appearing fbr fhe petitioner and pcrused'the pleadlags anil documents q>pended fliereto. Durn^ thc pendeacy of fhc applicatkm fital ly fhcrespondent No.l chatlenging the pHler of termination, ttie Irfiour Court considered it proper to decide the issue No. 1, as to whether the departmental/home ciiquuy coiiducted by thc pctitioner/eiapk>yer was legal aad proper ? (WtT ail4<i<t» ^ R*i(i aiR^r aA'iM' ^ W^ET ^' ^^rit^guiN 4Er?BRRit?). The above issue No.l was decided by Oxdcr dated 15.1.2007 m negative. It isapparent fhat, thcreafter, despite grant ofsufficient opportunily, the petitioncr/eiaployer fafled to briag aiy such facte, dociunents or evMences bcfcae thc Latoour Court to prove the nnisconduct on fhe part ofthei-espoadeittNo.l. Thus, by the fuaal order dated 25.6.2007, it was rightly held by the Labour • Court fhat tfae petitioner/eaiployer had coiaptetety failed to pTove that flie respondent No.t was guIUy of aay of fhe alleged miscoiiduct and accoidingly fhe ordcr of temuBation fiioai semce dafed 26.12.2002 was fouad as iUegal. HoWcver, in fhe facts and circuxttstances of thc case, the Labour Oourt directed rem.statcxaent of fhe Bespoadeat No. 1 on fhc same post or any bthcr equivatent post, without backw^es. rllll ^. 9. The Iiidustnal Court also considered fhc inatter at tei^jfh and passed the reasoDfid oader dated 19.12.2007,Iioldmg (hat fhe petitioacr/emptoyer Iias not even proved the alleged masconduct agamst the respondent No.l/eiuployee. TIius, there was no, mfirmity or iUegaMly in the order psssed by fhc Laboiu- Court aad Ae appeal filed by fhe petitioncr/employer was disaussed. The In.dustrial Court also dismassed fhe appeal fited by-the nespoiident No. 1/emploiyee fer grant ofback wages. 10, The issue is asto whethcr the peti.tioner/einployer te liabte to pay fhe amount of compensation towaids termination was not raised before the Courts below and as such fhe samecannot be pennitted to be raiscd ia tfais writ petition uader Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution ofliidia. 11. It is well settted fhat fhe power to issue a writ of certioran zmder Artiete 226 of fhe Constitution or the cxeicise of supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised spanagty Ad onfy ia appropnate cases wlicre the judicial conscience oftheH^i Courtdictettesitto acfc In SiBya De Ral V».Raa»caUHider Rat <md athws1 it was held that a writ of certioiari under Article 226 of fhe Constituticm is issued.sfor correctmg gross enora bf jiinsdictioa Le. when a Subordinate Coiut is found to Jiavc acted (^ wifhout jurisdic&ai, by assuming jurisdictioa where fhere exists nQDff, or (i^ m esccess of its jiuisdiction by overstepping or crossiiig the lunits of jurisdiction, or (iii) actixig ia fl^tant disregani oflawor the rules of pTocedure or actmg in violation of principles af iiatusal justfce where there a no. procedura spcdSed, aiid thereby Occasioxuiig faflure ofjustice. 12. TheSupreme Court m KtehoreKnnMB Khaltan and anot&er Vs. Praven Kiunar Sin^h2 observed fflat fhe jurisdlction under Articte 227ofthe Coastitutfon inay bc restrictive in the sense fhat it is to . be iavoked onty to coxrect errors ofjurisdiction. 13. It is wcU-nj^h estabHshcd tliat tlus Gottrt in cxerctee of ite supemsory jurisdiction shouM icfiain itsdf finm iaterfeEmg wifh fhc order p^scd by fhe Courts below, cxcept ia such. cases where »(2003) &SCC 675 2 (2006)^3 SCC312 'a*)lfc ,ey^ '%, 14. perversity, lUegaMly, n^gularityoTjurisdicttoBalerroriswritlaige oa the face oftl»erecoid,whichisnotmfheprescntcase. ta view offhe foregoittg^I do not find any scope for iaterference wifli the concurrent findings of bpfh fhe Courts below. Accordmgty, I do not fiad auy luerit in fhiswrit pcfition, wluch deseryes to be aiid is hereby dKmissed. No onler asto coate. -«/! 'Ilialau' /-: Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri :=|^':' Jud^e',;; Bft i-.-l.-l-;