S) e .s.^ IN THE fflGH COURT W JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH / Writ Petition No. 12 z3/2004 Petitioner: Shiv Charan Sahu, S/o Shri Badri Prasad Sahu, aged about 43 years, Plant Assistant-II, CSEB Korba West, Korba (CG), R/o F/827, STPP CSEB Colony, Korba West Korba (CG) District Korba(CG) Versus Respondents:!. ^^^Chhattisgarh State Electdcity Board^ through its Executive ^..•<&^*^ "Director(Generation) CEB Korba West. .\^y. ^^<^'.. •* ^' ^^^.~- ..^%^< ^..$>^y"3' ^1" ^ Chaim^n, State Industrial Court., Raipur (CG) Presiding Officer, Labour Court^ Bilaspur (CG) ^•'^y' ^ • / / ' ^^ ,^ PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 22^/22<OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA A^^ ^ NI6H COURT OF JUDIC^TURE CHHATTIS6ARM: BILASPUR W. P. No.1229 of 2004 Petitioner : ^iiv Charan 5diu Versus Re^ondfflits : Chhatt-is90irh State Electricity Baird and others Post for ordter on 7 ^ebruary, 2007. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge B^, HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE CHHATnS©AIW:MLASPUR Single Bmch: Hon'ble Shrt Satish K. Agnihotri. J. W. P. No 1229 of 2004 Petitioner : Shiv Charan Sohu V&rsus Respondents : Chhattisgarh State Btectricity Boord and o-tiiers Shri PrafuU Bharat, coimsej for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Pandey, counsel for Ihe respondent No. 1. (Passed on ^'K day of Febniary, 2007) 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges -Hie wli<lity of •the onter dated 15th April, 2004 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Ihclu^trbl Court-. Chhatt-i^wh, Raipur, the order Art-ed S.7.96 (Anrwxure P/^, passed by the Machya Prade^i Electricily Board, dismissing the petitioner as Pfant Assistont ^rade-H from the services with tmmedi<xte effect flsnd the order dated 10.05.04 (Annexure P/8), passed by Ihe Chhatt-isgarh State Electricity Board, dismissing the petitioner, (Hjrsucuit to the order da-ted 15th Aprit, 2004, possed by the Imlustrial Court. 2. The indisputable fflrcts, Jn nutadiell, are that the petitioner was employed as Plcnt Assistant Grade-II cuid was posted at Korbcx Power- Ptant. The petitioner was served wjth a change-sheet on 23.6.1995 (Annexure P/3). containing Itiree charges aJleging that the petitioner, while performing his dutfes as an Assistont to 1+» Store Keeper Gnxde-EE in EAM Stores Korba West, had issued scrap conveyor belt to Birsmghpur wi1+iout properly verifymg -riie documents wrfikA wss subsequently found to be fake cmd fatse <md as aidi, the same caused loss of the proper-ty worrii Rs. 15 Uxkhs to the respondent No. 1. The petitioner submifted hte detailed reply dated 11.7.1995 (Aruiexure P/4) and -riie enquiry was held by the ordter dated 5.7.96 (Annewire P/5). Tlie petitioner was dismissed from the services on the post of Phnt Assistant 6rade-II, holding -Hiat the cleparl-mental enyiiry wms proper ond legal ond ti^e findin9S of misconduct was proved in the enquiry. 3. B&ing aggrieved. the pet»tior»rpreferred an appeal before the Ldbour Courl", Bilaspur in Cosse No. 121/M.P.I.R./97. The Labour Court, by its order dated 06.04.2002 (Annexure P/6). held as under:- "8. ^^<m ^^^ ^ «T TR ^R ^CT 1R<T t ^? ^l4^€<»^ f^& uit i^s urra ^t ^ t, wErt' ^l(^>fll<^«<> WT ^ ^t^ ^fe ^nl? ti <*(l^<t«<»SW 15lt W^I| ulfq <^ wicr ^f iipm? ^n? f. ^ 3FIF*! l^? viro^ ^nroer f^q ^ 11 «RT: aii^<<i> ^ f^i^[ <H"><|(^<1 ^ ^iN «^t <bi44i^ ^ ^r ^erf^RT isN ^ 1urrra <bi44i^ l^r <f 13^r ?NT f^rf^hT I^Pff <5n<BT t tWT ^R w'r «5ire> i ^T (^<1«*><"1 •<«t»l<lc*t4> WT ^ <l€t"<a& WT ^f f^vf ^TRrr t i<t Thereaffrer, the Labour Court, by its order dated 15.05.2002 (Annexure P/2) considered the grovity of misconAjct ond the imposition of punishment asto whether the soune was proport'ionate. The Labour Court, aft-er having exiamined the evidences produced before the Labour Court as per order dated 06.04.2002. came to the conclusion as undter:- "2. WW <^ ^4<l4cl Rl^^l^ ^t ~svs we t fe 3Tpt<SW V^RS: ^«fe1*ft«^^ft w <fr4»ti^i «rr. 1uRrf5fe ^i^l<<fc ^ (^iPl«tH^ «ypf I^PIT ~W 11 <llRl^Y <5TW l^? 1rn? €^tw1^ ^ ^r? vpe v v^rrf^rar t fife •/. fiB^ aife<OT& ^ft 1|f<Nt ^ PI^K^<I«^t <fr-^^t< ^1% 15(Tft I^R; IP! i l ^slpl -ift f^^ ^ ^I ?rwi ^ ?*^R f^qr t. ^^ aFai <rf"lR|d af£r?R«r<ft44»i^ ^rtjRi^T ^ d<wi%ifl w ^ WFf ^fpff f i ^f^fW<li W^F TR ult <frl4*tl^ «^ ^. <3^R W^S ^ qt^B cW ^ gwiw^i ?^^T <4t 1aTiTf^par t i tiiRi^iT 4 w^«s^ «ffpf w 1?Rihr ift arw f^ir f i ^o4t0?f0 10016 ^ 10034 W ail4<{4> ^ ^'RTWr ^r^f ighrr ^ft mwr ^ u*<tH>id t j 1RWft a4U^K41d 1giT01jr¥W ^t ^B? ^ft ^a^lWt t f^ 4te? ^ ^?^ «^«rr^fvKf ^f€S «IT. q^Ff^> ^eN y«t>iid(^'i BW^ <(i**<fc?*i qF5H «^ ^mR lR ^ft yff ^RRft 11 WCT ^l ^l? ^ft flllPtRr t f^ «frl441d"l ari^prer <ft f^^t <^ ^ftf^? f^pfw q^ ^ «w44i^l^ ^ »ft <T»-ff <4U^|<y|ri 4ft JfS^f ^ ff^ rft <4l4>l< f^lf t f^^ ^l ^ft *l1fel^ f^V ^R 4>l44t^ <p^ t^j f^nft l^qpr ^ qJ^G® arRiiCTft i^ l^nfw w arfSR^ar <b4^iiRflT snr <wf <iwf^xt t^ff ^sffRT. ^ WIFq V^qr tl ^l? idWKUII «^t ^rr iRB^t t ^> «ll4<«t>8TCT qR% ^ gn^^r ^ Tira;r ^r ^ *w4 1^'ir ^pir ti ^ift ^wr ^ ^r ^tRT t f^ Wt^cg W 811<lRld ^<1^<^1 fl*llf&ltl WSS t( <aij^l<«<*> srfSl^ ^ 3^ pllV<4(^l"f ^CT w ^Nt tmr i*rr ^TOOT tl w^arr ^ft wt^ d<b»ft«tfl^^ift w «fr4^i'R «nr. <pff <ant^f I^RI V^ Vf PlflTRfd W. ^R^ ^F"f «»PfiS^IP? W^ ^ <aRirif ^ «^ f^ aii4<t* <d yhr; ^hft ii^f wrr <aT <i<t>c(i t l wa: qp? iiw <pire> 2 w Pi<i4><"i •t«<»i<i<*<«f>Wf ^ •I^1' ^ WT ^F l^W vHW t wif ^ss fSrf^hr f^fff 'STRTT t ^ W^!S XR ^^nFftyf <aw ^ ^ <i<Kll4<>lT <W <i(44)4 <S^ vfa:scv wrf^r "^ ^^gwfhr ?^ ^ ^q/fiFWCT^® 4>^^1< ^yC Wft f^ ^S^ ^ ^^ |^^j^^ <S^^R ^vC <»t ^WKPI ^ vW^ ^ ('fte^ ^ ^ff^ w) y|N> <^<? ^T^ ^ ^l-l^a*t»< ^^R ^c^ <^ ^wrqhr «i^ f^w-t WR[ <ffRN TItll^ltt '-[^¥ f, 15tF'g 3||^4**> ^•ff OS^f^Wf %t U*tl ld l^l? 'BRI *ltRst«l* Rl<r!?ll'l<HI< <BPf ^?^ ^ dj<i<4i^^uf ^v^ w aifRp? wr ^^fttt" It was accordingly hetd that in v'ww of the finding -that the petittoner was guilty of negfigence and the punishment of dismissal from service wos not proper. the Labour Court in exercise of its power under the provision of Section 107-A of Ihe AAadhya Pradesh Industrkil 4 l^ ftefations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Ihe Act, 1960") quashed the order of dismissat <md directed remstatement of •t+te petitiotwir with punishment of withholding of one month's sabxiy, 4, Being aggrieved, the employer/re^andent No, 1 preferred an fl^eal before the Industrial Court, Chhatt-isgarii, ftnipur in Case. No. 195/M.P.LR. Act/A-II/2002. The petttioner also preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court-, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in CQSS& No. 196/M.PJ.ft. Act/A-H/2002. The Industrbl Court without consictering the evidences produced before the Labour Court canie to 1+»econclusion -rtiat th& Labour Court- has committed grave irregutarity by substituting its own opinion in 1+ie legal emd valid finding of the enquiry officer. The Industrkxl Court completely ignored the direction of the superior officers for nelease, of consignments. Accordingly, the appeal of the employer/re^»ondentwas allowed ond the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement wos set asjdte. The a|^)eal fited by the petitioner was dtsmi&sassd vide order dated 15th April, 2004. The petittoner was, thereafter, removed froni serv^ by the order dated 10.05.2004 (Annexure P/8). 5. Shri Prufull Bharat, learrwd counsel a^earmQ for the petitioner wwukl &ibmit that the fmding of -the 3jidustrial Court- -riiat -riie Labow Coirt committ-ed grave irregularity in directing reOTStatranent is perverse. The Labour Court hctf examined -the eviidenc&s caf»d csame to 1+ie conctusion that Ihe evidence odduced by the employer in the dqxirtmental proceedings does not establi^i the misconduct cnd it .(?:-- ^ was the cose of negli9ence. On the question of aibstitution of his own opinjon, it was contended that the Labour Court wss fully JuarHfied under the provisions of Section 107-A of the Act, 1960. The Labour Courl- can amend the order of imposition of penalty even <xfter holdm9 Ihat th®enquiry vwxs proper in procedural ofipect i.e. in respect of examination of tiie evidence, ^iow-couse noti<»cnd cwiduct ®fthe enquiry, not on the finding recorded by the em^jiiry offteer. The Labour Court is fully enyowered to re-c^praise the evktonoe m the domestic enquiry and come to a different findmg. 6. Shri Yogesh Pandey, (eamed counsel appearing for -riie respondent No. 1, supported the impugned order dated 15th April, 2004 (Annoaire P/l), passed by the ]jKhistr»atCeurt. 7. I have heard leamed counsel c^Kearmg for the parl'ies, penised the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. On hearing submissions of th®part'ies oaid perusing •Hw recwds, it is apparent -riiat the Labour Court^ has ex<xmirwd the empjiry reporl' OT depth cnd hos further examincsd 'the evidenCT«proAiced before bim. The fmding of 1+i®L<tbour Court is just, proper w»dvalid and needs no interference. The observation of the Industrial Court that Ifi®Labour Court committed grave irregularity is without any bosis. Th® ,-submission of the petitioner merits acceptance as Ihe same was based on evidence on record. Leamed counsel fl^pearmg for thc respondent No. 1 ho^ not pebutt-ed any factual statement made by teamed counsel oppearing for the petitioner, •^•^^^^s^^..^..^,»^^..<:w..v..»w.^ 6 f^ 9. Admittedly, -riie refeasing orders wer®issued under the signature of 1+ie aiperior autiiorities in case of two of -the TV's bearmg No. 10016 and 10034. There wos no signa-hjre of the petitNNier antil the enquiry officer has found proved. Even the scud TV's were released under the order and signatures of the superior authorities. The entire departmcntal proceedings wwre done at Korba and for recording <yf evidence of other witness, the venue was diifted to Jaba^iur< The petitioner could not produce defence witnesses as the petilfoner was not pcu'd any aibsistence allowance during that penod. Tlie emptoyer/re^ondent has adopted diffwent ywdsticks for different outhorities involved in Ihe said jncident/ No enquiry was condkjcted against Mr. ftoye^h Verma, Executive Engineer, Mr J.L. Kartor, Store Keeper and Mr. S.R. Rathore, PA IE, though •the charge-sheet wos gjven to them. Mr. J.K. Ldiari. Assistant Engineer also iwoJvcd h the incictent was terminated from the scrvices cuid on modification in cppeal he was tdten back in service as Junior Engineer. Mr. M* Khaka was terminated from the services, on the order passed by the Lodbair Court, sett-OTg aside the terminatton order. he was torfcwi back in servk®. Jhe enquiry report and show-couse notice before impod!ition of punishment was afa%> not supplied to the petitionei*, being violative under Artide 311 (2) of the Constitutron of India. 10. The Supreme Court in th®case of Capt. M. Paul ^nthony Vs. Bharat 6oM Mincs LN. and A»wth«<1held Ihat tiw findings, reconted by the enquiry officer in absence of defence witnesses, who coukt not be w- >' produced before the enquiry officer on occount of hfe finorwlal problem ocoatsioned by non-poyment of aibastence altowonce, stouid vitiated. In the present case, it was not disputed that subij^stence albwan<» was not paid to the petitioner during pendency of the deparhnental proceec(ings as it was not suggested by 1+ie resp<mdents tiiat the petitiorwer had any other source of income. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Enginearing U^hu Udyog Employees' Uniwi Vs. Judg®,Uibour Court and Industrkil Trtbunal and anothcr2 he(d in para 6, as unAsr:- "6. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short- "the Act") confers a wkle power upon the Labour Court, Tribunal or th& National Tribunal to give approprtate nelief in case of dischoirge or dismissal of workman. While adjudicating on a reference made to it, tiie Labour Court-, Tribunal or tlw National Tribunal, as the case moy be, if satisfieflt that the order of discharge or dismissal wos not justified, nwy, while setting aside the soime, direct reinstatement ef the workman on such terms cmd conditions, if ony, as it 1+iinks ftt, or give such other relief to the workmfln including the aw»rdof any lessea* puni^iment in lieu of dischcu*<|e or disnitssal as thte c»rcumstan<»sof -rfie case may requipe. Thus, only in a case where the satisfflbctiCTi te ntcdied by the Labour Ceurt or the Tribunal, os the case moy be, that on order of disanissal was not justified, the same can be set aside........../ 12. In the cos& of 6ovt. of A.P. and othcn Vs. Mohd. Nasndtoh Khan3, th®Supreme Court held that it is w»llsetttedl 1+iat 'Hie Hjgh Court exercisin9 of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the 8 Constitution of India does not act as w\ ^ppeltate Authority. Its jurisdictjon is circum.scribed ond confined to correct errors of hw or procedural (error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or vioJation of principles of natural Justice. In the present case. the Industrial Court has committed serious error by iyioring the findings of the Labour Court recorded after re-opproiisal of •Hie evidences produced before the enquiry officer as well as the addttional evidences adduced before the Labour Court. IS.Thus, th®impu3n®<lorder dated 15th April, 2004 (Ann&xure P/l), passed by the Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur and order dated 5.7.96 (Annexure P/5). passed by the Madhya Pradesh Etectricity Board, dismissing the petitioner as Plont Assistont Srode-II from services with immediate effect are bad cnd qua^ied. ConsequentJy. the order dated 10.05.04 (Annexure P/8), passed by the ChhanjS9arh State Etectricity Board. dismissing the petitioner, puraiant to Ihe order dated 15th April, 2004, passed by the Industrial Court is bad csnd deserve to be oaid is set aside. The impugrwcl order dated 06,04.2002. passed by the Uxbour Courl-, Bjlaspur (Annexure P/6) is affirmed ooid restored. 14. Jhe. writ petition is accordingly attowed. No order as to wsts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge L {(1999) 3 SCC 679} 2. {(2003) 12 SCC 1} 3. {(2006) 2 SCC 373} Bably