HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma,JJ. WRIT APPEAL NO. 32912011 APPELLANT Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, through the Executive Engineer (Store), Tiara, District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Heera Lal, Slo Rameshwar, aged about 58 years, R/o Pahadi Chowk, Gudhiyari, Riapur District Raipur (C.G.). 2‘ State Industrial Court, Bench Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2007 Appearance: Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (15.07.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA,J. Heard on admission. Appellant- Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited has flied this appeal against the order dated 08.04.2011 passed in Writ Petition (L) No. 125/2008 by the Writ Court. By the impugned order. the Writ Court has dismissed the petition tiled by the appellant challenging the order dated 13.12.07 passed by State Industrial Court Chhattisgarh, in Civil Case No. 29lCGiR Act/AJI/2007. Respondent No.1 was an employee of the appellant. He was ‘ appointed in'the year 1968 as helper. He remained absent from duty from 01.07.1993 to December, 1994. According to the appellant several letters were issued, but he did not respond to those letters. therefore, departmental inquiry was initiated. The respondent No.1 participated in the departmental zinquiryrand submitted his defence that he was throughout ill and he has sent application for grant of leave. The inquiry Omcer did not accept the defence of % (wan APPEAL No. 32912011 the respondent no.1 and thereafter the respondent No.1 was removed from service on 08.1 1 .1995. Against the said order passed in the departmental inquiry. the respondent no.1 approached the Labour Court by t1ling case No. 33IMPIR/96. The reply of the appeiiant was taken and the evidence of both the parties were recorded before the Labour Court and after perusal of the above reply and evidence of both the parties, the Labour court, finally dismissed the application filed by respondent No. 1 on 10.01.2007. Against the said order passed by the Labour Court, the respondent No.1 tiledan appeal before the Industrial Court, which came to be registered as Civil Case No. 29/CGIR Act/A.lll2007. The Industrial Court afterhearing both the parties allowed'the appeal and reversed the findings recorded by the Labour Court. It is against this order of Industrial Court the appellant/Employer tiled the above writ petition. The Writ Court vide para 5 of the impugned order observed that the Industrial Court has examined the documents. re-appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 had (sent the application through driver- Munna and the third application, he had submitted himself. No order was passed on his application and the respondent No.1 was removed from service. According to the Industrial Court, the respondent No.1 had made appropriate application and had submitted relevant document and as such it cannot be held that he was guilty of misconduct of being unauthorized absent. The Writ Court, therefore, dismissed the Writ petition and upholding the order passed by the Industrial Court. Mr. Pali submits that the findings recorded by the Industrial Court are perverse, he takes us to various paragraph of the order passed by the Industrial Court. We have gone through the orders passed by the Labour Court, Industrial Court as 'also the Writ Court and we, have also perused the records, in which the application, reply and evidence of respondent no.1 recorded before the Labour Court has been tiled. The Industrial Court has appreciated the evidence available on record in light of the pleadings taken by the parties and has recorded a particular finding which is passed on material on record 1" e and thereafter, it has allowed the appeal med by respondent No.1 and ha directed that the respondent No.1 shall be reinstated without back wages. On due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the writ appeal as also on be...“ s 3 2? WRIT APPEAL NO‘ 32912011 consideration of the records of the writ petition, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Writ Court warranting interference in this intra-court appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ,w ——nt . "Tl Sci/- . M . . h sm a : lsunlllfl‘illlgllaer ‘ ‘ ‘L l i g e Sc”- Radhe Shyam Sharma nah-n Judge