f'. \\^°^?,,.,...,.. R.N* ^.TB^I^--""". sea*.- 'sJ'\'2-:J.&i^---— >.——"'" .1"^ f 'T\ /3-o BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURTOF C.G. AT BlLASPUR W.P.fLV No. ^Xftf 72008 Ajmer Singh, Aged about 40 Years S/o late Suchha Singh, Qrt. No. 4-A, Street H No. 68, Sector 6, Bhilai, Dlst - Durg PETItIQNER V/s (1) Bhilai Steel Rlant, through General Manager, Rail & Structural Mill/RSM/RTS/RPDB, Bhilai, Dist - Durg. (2) Statelndustrial Court Bench at Raipur, Ghari Chowk, Raipur. (3) PresidingOfficer, Labour Court, Durg R£4p<mri/e-i4-A ~i,_ re- L>A^u47r»+d&3e^~ -^£^^^^^ RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 REAb WITH ARTICLE 227 OR THE CONSTCTVTt©N10FaNDIft FO^^ ISSUANfiE OFV^iTttF MANE^I^OS.^EIVI^ A 13lKECtlON:;(OF LlKE'NATURE^',.:\:^,i.'^^^ y ^^- ^a-—rLV-?^. •9 -a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition (L) No. 4614 of 2008 AJmer Singh Vs. Bhilai Steel Plant & Others E- Post for pronouncement ofjudgment and orders on-^5 /03/2009 Sd/. satMhK.Agn^ lge ^hilli^liisli^^iifet,^.^.'.';..-. •.:..,.- s HIGHCOURTOFCHHAmSGARHATBILASPUR WritPetitionfLINo. 4614 of2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ajmer Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o lateSuchha Singh, Qto-. No. 4-A, Street H No. 68, Sector-6, Bhilai, Distt. Durg. VERSUS 1. Bhilai Steel Plant, through General Manger, Rail & StrucfureMill/RSMRTS/RPDB, Bhilai, Distt.Durg. 2. State Industrial Court, Bench at Raipur, Ghari Chowk, Raipur. 3. Presiding OfBcer, Labour Court, Durg. CWRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 READ WITH ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF D4DIA) . (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri N.K. Vyas, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Gautam Bhaduri, Advocatefor the respondent No. 1. (Passed on this .^> dayofMarch,2009) 1. The petitioner, an employee, challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 22.07.2008 (AnnexureP/1), passed in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 13/CGIRA/III-2008, whereby, the Indusb-ial Court, set aside the order dated 26.03.2008, passed by the Labour Court, and remandedback the matter for fi-esh hearing, after having afforded proper opportunity ofhearing to both the parties. 2. The .brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner had been working oh the post ofCrane Operator (S-3) in the Shipping Department ofRail and Structure Mill at Bhilai Steel Plant since 04.11.1989. On 26.02.2005, the petitioner was charge sheeted for remaining unaufhorized absent for 102 days for the period fi-om August 2003 to December, 2004 (Annexure-P/2), By reply dafed 09.03.2005 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner denied all the eharges Igyeled against him and submitted that his parents and wife were not keepingwell and as such he was "^*^i3?L^£B-^ iliili:iai!il,,^:,~:. required to look after them. Thus, absent was not deliberate but due to reasons beyond his control. The applications filed by the petitioner for grant of leave were rejected. Enquiry Officer was appointed. A notice was served upon fhe employee to appear before fhe Enquiry Officer on 06.10.2005. The petitioner made request for adjoumment of Departmental Proceedmgs for a period of two months. The Enquiry Officer granted one month time and fixed the case for hearing on 26.11.2005. In absence ofthe petitioner, the departmental enquiry proceeded ex-parte on 26.11.2005. 3. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 31(3) read with Section 61 ofthe Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act, 1960') before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, by order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure P/10), declared the enquiry report as bad on the ground that the same was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/delinquent employee to produce dociunents and examine witaesses in his defence. It was accordingly directed that fi-esh enquiry may be conducted. 4. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 1/employer preferred an application under section 67 of the Act, 1960 before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, afier hearing both the parties, by order dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure P/l) came to the conclusion that the court below had passed the order without affordmg an opportunity ofhearing to the first respondent/employer. Thus, the order was set aside and matter was remanded back for fresh hearing by the impugned order dated 22.07.2008 (Annexure P/l). Thus, this petition. ^5. Shri Vyas, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the unauthorized absence of the petitioner was not deliberate but due to reasons beyond control ofthe petitioner. The Inquiry Officer, without granting one more opportunity, proceeded ex-parte within a period pf.three days and held that the petitioner ^remained authorizedly absent for 100 days &om August, 2003 to rr~ M]U,IJIiBUflSa...,,..r-:.-., Wil,: "•E-'i aaiapai=n»inhwi,a •;»3ili.;iS ^ December, 2004. Accordingly, inquiry report was submitted (Annexure P/6) and as a result, dismissal order ofthe petitioner from services was passed on account of unauthorized absence, on 04.01.2006 by ttie competent authority (Annexure P/7). Leamed counsel would further submit that the enquiry report was bad and perverse as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer proceeded on the basis of documents without examining the relevant evidences. 6. Per contra, Shri Gautam Bhaduri, leamed counsel appearmg for the respondent No.l/employer would submit that the report was not heard properly but pn fhe basis ofreply submitted by the petitioner, the Labour Court has passed the order. The Labour Court has not given opportunity to the respondenVemployer to put forward his case orally. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court isjustandproper. 7. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the enquiry officer proceeded ex- parte. On perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the enquiry was held as ex-parte, but opportunity ofhearing was not afforded to the respondent No. 1, thus, the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 8. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India, shouldrefrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, •»irregularity orjurisdictional error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. 9. Since the matter is pending consideratioS before the Labour Court and no stay was granted by fhis court, it is just and proper thafthe Labour Court should cpmplete hearing as directed by the Industrial Court, after affording proper 'lillljll w':3 -i^J ipportunity ofhearing to both the parties. I am not expressing any opinion on merits ofthe case. The court below shall not be influenced by any observations made hereinabove while adjudicating the matter in accordance wifh law, on its ownmerits. lO.For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Saliu SdA '^•t»'" ge ~r~ \''f .:('%.