mGBLCOtJBT OF CHBATTISGASH At BILASPUR WRrTJPETinQN,(D N6.4670 of 2008 PETITIONER : Chhattisgarh Infrastrueture Deyelopment Corporation Through : Divisional Manager (Transport Departmeiit) Bilaspur(C.G.) VERSUS : RESPONDENTS •.Narendra Yadav S/o Shri Amar Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o C/o Girjesh Yadav Gram Sadak Motor, Gwalior (M.P.) WRITPETm@N_UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AsniUotri, J. m. Present: Smt. Anju Aliuja, Adyocate for the petitioner, NonBfbrtherespondeirt. 1. ORAL ORDER (Passedon28fll dayof August, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 29.03.2008 (Annexure PA) passed in Civil AppealNo. 34/CGIR Act/A-IV07, whereby the order dated 30.04.2007, passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur, in case No. 50/CGIR Act/04, has been confirmed and the appeal filed by the petifioner has been dismissed. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits that the Courts below have committed an error of law in holding that the petitioner-Corporation is liable tp grant emplQyment to the ex-employee ofthe, fhen, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'MPSRTC'). Smt. Ahuja further submits that once, in the departmental enquiry, the respondent is found guilty ofremauiingunauthorizedly.absent for aperiod ofl2 days, the Labour Courtas well as ftie Industrial Court oyghtnothave interfered with the fmdmgs and allowed the application of fhe respondent- employee. ' . | ^x. r'~"-''v ^ : •."'•• ..;' ..' 5. Ami( Mt1 I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused fhe pleadings and documents appended thereto. The Labour Court, relying on a deeision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 442/1990 (Virendra Singh Naikadi Vs. Chhattisgarh In&astructure Development CorpOration Ltd. fe another), decided on 28 Februaiy, 2007, whereia this Court relymg on a notification dated 13.12.2002, held fhat the liability with regard to the employees, who had retired fi-om the places, which fall today within the territorial jurisdiction oflhe State of Ghhattisgarh has been transferred to the Chhattisgarh Infi-astmcture Development Corporation Ltd., has rightly held that the CKhattisgarh IniB'astructure Development Corporation was liable to grant employment tb fhe ex-employee. Further, it was found that the enquirywas not proper. Thus, fhe order of removal from serviee on accoimt of remaining unauthorizedly absent for a period ofmorethan 10 days was Set aside and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent-employee. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia, should re&ain itself ftom interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, iiregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. Looking irom all angles, law and equity, there is no infimiity or irregularity in the decision-making. The Courts below have rightly come to the oonclusion that this is the responsibility of the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner. The impugned order is unexceptionable and needs no interference. — : In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No orderasto cost. .—-^——-— Sd/- ^•^,.. .• ;i.. , -: SatiSliK.AgiiiIiotri Fudge ^B.