IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Petition No. é 25$ / 2005 Assailing Order Dated 07/03/2005 Passed By Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in CA N0. IO/MPIR ACt/A—II/ZOOI, (Annexure 4-- P/I) Which confirmed Order Dated 07/03/2005 Passed By Labour Court in Case N0. 2/MPIR Act/1 995, ‘ 0- PETITION UNDER ART 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION Petitioner/ Prahlad Singh Non—Applicant/ C/o Dr. Shri P. N. Roy, Sarvodaya Clinic, > ‘ Vii-“w, Yuba Ankush Chowk, Vill. Chawni, Bhilai, ‘ Distt. Durg ‘ VERSUS QWB ,i 5§eésp0ndeml Manager of Works, Applicant Bhilai Engineering Corp. Ltd. PO Box No. 31, Industrial Area, Bhilai, Teh. & Distt. Durg HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 6259 0f2005 PETITIONER Prahlad Singh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS Manager ()f Works, Bhilai Engineering- Corp. Ltd. PETITION UNDER ART 227' OF THE CONSTITUTION EB: Hon’ble Shrl Satish K. Agnihotrip J. \ \\ Present: Shri Raja Shanna: Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER (GRAL‘ (Passed on 26 day of April, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the Iegality and vaiidity ofthe order dated 07.03.2005 (Annexure Pfl) passed invCA. No. IOJMPIR Act/A—IL’ZOOI by the Industriai Court, Raipur, upholding the order passed by the Labour Court, Durg, in Case No. 2/MPIR/95 ‘ (Armexure P/2) whereby the order dated 09.08.1994 (Annexure P/4) I passed by the respondent, removing the petitioner from service, was found to be just and proper. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner, alongwith one Manoj Tatukdar, were issued charge sheet on 24.08.1993 (Annexure P/3) alieging that in order to humiliate one Rajesh Chaturvedi, they indulged in physical act whieh could have even caused threat to his life. An enquiry was eonducted by the respondent wherein the petitioner was found guilty ofthe charges and he was removed from services. 3 On perusal ofthe pleadings. the petitioner has not raised any specific ground asto how the orders passed by the Industrial Court, Labour Court and the respondent. are illegal or perverse. The petitioner has made a mere sefsanie statement that the tennination order passed by the ;\\;_\ respondent which was later on contirmed by the Labour Court and \\ @ 2 ‘ Industrial Com? is not proper and the punishment of removal from sorvice is dispropoxfionate. The grounds appear to be vague. The petitioner has further not f11ed any document, except the charge Shem and the tennination order, to show asto how the enquily is Vitiated. Having regard to the act of detiling with other colleague, the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that order ot'removal from service passed by the respondent, was just and proper. Futther, the petition ls sketchy as it does not disclose complete details or any material in support ofthe allegation of arbitrariness and illegality. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Amit Sd/— ‘ ‘ “ i . Satish K. Agnihom L Judge U1