^^^^^<!r^'^l^<^-&Hu^^/>^^^^^^<^^^^^, r. TM THE HIGH COURTQP. JUDICATOBE. MADHYA PBADESH AT JABAIWB- WRIT .PETITiai OF 2000. WIT^Eim®UNDER ABTI^LE 22% ©FTHE CWSWSTS&S. 3NDIA.. , ' ~\ —,' PETITIONEB BESPSNDENTS ; Jatiaahailal Sopal, Son of Shri •^aigopa.l, Aged about 35 years, Ex Qffice Assistan-t, Madbya Bharat Papers LiBiited 'Oiaapa, Besicient of Barpali Chgwtc, Cteaa^a, District Chaapa-Janjglr. V E B S 13 S ^ ; i.: . MeBtier Judge, : Industrial Coor-t, Raipur Bench, BAIPUB (M.P. ) 2. tifadhya BharatPapers Ltmited Chaapa, District-Champa-Janj gir ^) mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition No. 260 of2000 Jawaharlal Gopal. VERSUS Member Judge, Industrial Court, Raipur & Another. Post forpronouncementofjudgment& orderon .tZMay ofFebruary, 2011. A^ -'• fs il.' . v ^ff-^n Sd/- Satish I^. Agaihotri Judge ^i *^ <yX. r" II i i: ^ , T^- -WSad mGH COURT OF_CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS. JR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WritPetitionNo. 260 of 2000 Jawaharlal Gopal. VERSUS Member Judge, Industrial Court & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri S.P.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.K.Vyas, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. (Delivered on »?jS.. day of Febroary, 2011) 1. In the instant case, the petitioner-employee is questioning the legality and validity ofthe order dated 21.01.1999 (Annexure P/l) in respect ofdenial ofbackwages. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are fhat againstthe order of reinstatement dated 21.01.1999 (Annexure P/l), the respondent No. 2-employer filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, being W.P. No. 944/1999. The writ petition was dismissed on 11.03.1999 (Annexure R/l). Thereafter, a Letters Patent Appeal (for short 'the LPA') was also preferred against the said order of dismissal, being L.P.A. No. 190/2000. The leamed Division Bench, by p 11.08.2000 (Annexure R/2) dismissed the LPA also. Thus, fhe order impugned herein ;'.e. 21.01.1999 became final. 3. Shri Kale, leamed counselappearmg for the petitioner would submit that since the order of denial of back-wages was not in question, dismissal ofthe writ petition filed by the respondent No. 2 m respect ofthe impugned order dated 21.01.1999, does not debar the petitioner &om challenging the refusal of back-wages. Leamed counsel submits that the petitioner was kept out of service for a penod of seven years and eight months for which, the petitioner is entitled to back-wages as the petitioner was not at fault and he was 'prevented ftom performing the work. 4. On the other hand, Shri Vyas, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 would submit that denial ofbackwages was not on the principle of 'no work-no pay' but on the ground that the Labour Court as well as the appellate Court have held that the petitioner was also responsible alongwith other persons viz. A.N.Singh, Sameer Das, N.K.Barik and V.K.Trivedi. It was further held that refusal ofgrantof baek-wages would be sufEicient punishment m a case where for misconduct of several employees including the petitioner, the petitioner alone was removed from service. Thus, the denial of back- wages was not on account of the fact that he was employed gainfully elsewhere, but for participation in the alleged misconduct alongwith other employees. .-// ^ ^ 1f- 'ia9 ^ 5. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the order dated 21.09.1996 passed by the Labour Court and thereafter, confirmed by the Industrial Court on 21.01.1999, has attained finality as thereagainst, the respondent No. 2 moved fhe High Court of Madhya Pradesh as well as the Division Bench by way ofappeal. The writ petition as well as the appeal were dismissed. 6. It is not a case where the petitioner can claim back-wages on the ground that he was deprived from working on account ofillegal aGtion of the employer, which resulted into reinoval from service. The Courts below have set aside the order of removal from service and imposed the punishment of denial of back-wages with reinstatement. The relevant para ofthe order dated 21.01.1999 (Annexure P/l) reads as under: "uft W<[S 'EICTT ^ •?Ner •^ pi4)cMi c^ qra- •gra' ^f aft, '3Wf ^ft Sf^diri c^ •.TPT cCT VJOT.KSJ ^tT a(T, ?p^ *4i<lR'yf c& gTCT •FFIH ^<i|t|\!u| •cp^ c^ siici^c; c^r ~^ €t XfsS?T ^W 'idpW 'sf^rr 'Fi€r S(T, ~^ • wr ciszri' ?? fS^n? q^ ^ •^ TRT •^ sfifldid ^ TTEn' ^ ift "l|l4lpld ^ 'cpgT uTT Wf^m 3pft?(f5 ^\ '^RT wnf^r R-ijch g-5-91 ^pT ^ 'T^ aft i SITGT Hc|? q?r 3Ic[1Sr cFPTT 7 cl^ 8 '^T? ^t ?)' ^TRft tl Tl^ fRT ^ 'srR' ^T arafSr c^ •prt!^ -ERH -^ cti4-cii'?l 'c^ crf^T V3\ 'uTlcT, cft ift clg w\i^ -^3 •EpgT UTT <Hcbdl t [" 7. The Supreme Court, in Union oflndia & Others v. P.K.Kuttapdn and Divisional Controller, G.S.R.t.C. v. Kadarbhai J. Suthar , wherein serious charge were leveled against the respondent-employee, the ^t :;^ iy*" ; (8 ' 2007 AIR SCW 1587 22007AIRSCW1331 sy BinBs >^ 1 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since fhe charges were yery serious in nature, the High Court and Tribunal ought not have taken a lenient view ofthe matter ordering reinstatement with 50% backwages. The Supreme Court set aside the part of the order with regard to payment of50% backwages. 8. The Supreme Court, in KadarbhaiJ. Suthar , observed as under: "10. Additionally, the Labour Court had taken note ofthe previous acts ofmisconduct by the workman while denying the back wages. That aspect was completely lost sight ofby the leamed Single Judge as well as the Divisioa Bench.Merely because the Corporation did not challenge the order of reinstatement that does not lead to a conclusion that it accepted any illegality in the departmental proeeedings. As a matter of fact, the Labour Court clearly noted that the workman admitted the legality and propriety of the inquiry held against him." 9. The Supreme Court, 'mAbdulRazak (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rqfaram Wagle & Others , observed as under: "21...There have been several other instances ia which different High Courts have passed orders in exereise ofpower under Articles 226 or 227 ofthe Constitution of India disregarding the limitations identified and indicatgd by this Court in several decisions on the exercise of that power. We hope and tmst that in fature the High Courts would keep in view the limitations of certioran jurisdiction/ supervisory jurisdiction and re&ain from deciding fhe writ petitions filed under Article 226 or petitions/applications filed under Article 227 offhe Constitution as if they are adjudicating appeals filed against the orders ofthe lower courts or other judicial/quasi-judicial bodies/authorities." ^ '-*' jjpr 2010 AIR SCW 1414 •—-// III 7\, lO.The ratio laid down in the aforestated case has been referred with approval in Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar pffft'/4. ll.In the case on hand, no jurisdictional error, infrrmity er irregularity has been pointed out. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which is legal, just and proper. 12.For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit in the case and the petition is dismissed. 13.No order asfo costs. ^ »~A' tjf^ Sd/- SatishK.Agiiihom Judge Amit -I (2010) 8 SCC 329