@p-W ® #W , SEWJ" §EN€EH @ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITIONis) No. § El [2009. PETITIONER: / Balkn'shna, son of Appa Rao, aged about 35 years, working in the post of EPGS, Dipka Expansion Pariyojna, SECL, Dipka, Area, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Versus Resgondents If” 1. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur, C.G. Through Its Chairman foum— Managing Director. 2. Director, (Personal), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur, C.G. I“ 3. Dy.Chief Personal Manager (Labour), South Eastern Coaliileds Limited, Bilaspur, C.G. . Chief General Manager, SECL, Dipka Area, P.O.Pragti Nagar, Dipka, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. /5. Chief Personnel Manager, SECL, Dipka Area, Korba, Chhattisgarh. 6. Personnel Manager, SECL, Dipka Expansion Manager, Korba, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S! No. 5761 of 2009 @ PETITIONER Balkrishna VERSUS RESPONDENTS South Eastern Coamelds Ltd. and others Post for pronouncement of the order on 2Z9.2011 M w sd/— m a W i—~ 7 Pritinker Diwaker Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR g2 (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Petitioner in person. Shri Praveen Das, counsel for the respondents. WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IBLDIA o R D E R (22.09.2011) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 3.7.08 (Annexure P/1) passed by Chief General Manager, SECL (respondent No.4) dismissing the petitioner from service after conducting due enquiry. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as General Mazdoor, Category-l on 30.10.98 in Iieu of acquisition of land. A complaint was received by the police station Dipka regarding illegal .1. appointment of 27 persons in the SECL in Iieu of acquisition of land and that those persons obtained the appointment on the basis of forged documents. Police station Dipka, in turn, asked the management to direct these employees to report to the police station along with the documents and the witnesses who had identified them during the. *course of employment. Pursuant to the direction given by the management all these employees including the petitioner were to appear before the police and submit all the necessary documents. It appears that the petitioner did not comply with the order of the management and ultimately he was subjected to charge sheet on 25.11.2006 (Annexure D/1) which was filed by the petitioner on 27.4.2011. Reply to the charge sheet was submitted by the petitioner. Enquiry officer was appointed as per the certified standing order of the SECL, the-petitioner participated in the enquiry and the enquiry \’ Writ Petition (S) No. 5761 of 2009 PETITIONER Balkrishna VERSUS RESPONDENTS South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and others _.O_ report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 23.1.08. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 7.6.08 along with the copy of the enquiry report. 3. After completion of all the formalities as required under the taw, the petitioner has been dismissed from service vide order dated 3.7.08 (Annexure P/1). A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that the petitioner has not availed the statutory alternative remedy under Clause 30 of the standing order before the Chairman cum Managing Director of the company. Further, the petitioner being aworkman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the lD Act 1947, has a remedy of raising the dispute under Section 10 of the ID Act before the lndustrial Tribunal. 4. lt is argued by the learned counsel for‘the respondents that looking to the nature of dispute involved in the present case and that various applications and documents were tiled by the petitioner before this Court, all these disputed factual aspects cannot be considered by this Court unless opportunity is given to both the parties to adduce evidence. In support of his contention he placed his reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Transport and Dock Workers Union Vs. Mumbai Port Trust and Another reported in (2011) 2 SCC 575. Counsel for the respondents has filed reply with respect to the merit of the case also. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. During pendency o'f/ writ petition, the petitioner has med the applications dated 11.3.2010, 14.7.2010, 27.9.2010, 12.11.2010, 4.1.2011, 31.1.2011, 22.3.2011, 27.4.2011 and‘29.7.2011 for taking various documents on record. 7. In some of the applications petitione has also made allegation of \ l discrimination shown to him referring to o’ther cases of similar nature in the «same company but he has been singled out for no fault on his part. Some of the relevant applications have also been replied to by the respondents denying the contention of the petitioner. ~ [ r L \ \ vzv‘ I 8. From the facts as mentioned by the petitioner in the petition it is apparent that evidence is required to be adduced by the parties to arrive at a particular conciusion. In the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above it has been held as under: “In our opinion the writ petition filed by the appellants should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction, and the discretion should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an alternative remedy available to the appellant In this case there was a clear alternative remedy available to the appellants by raising an industrial dispute and hence we fail to understand why the High Court entertained the writ petition. It seems to us that some High Courts by~adopting an over liberal approach are unnecessarily adding to their load of arrears instead of observing judicial discipline in following the- settled legal principles. However, we may also consider the case on merits." 9. In view of the rival submissions of the parties and the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above, it is difficult for this Court to decide the present petition involving the disputed questions of facts in particular the finding recorded by the enquiry oflicer regarding ownership and title of the land acquired by the respondents in lieu thereof the petitioner was given appointment, this petition is not maintainable. w 10. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to either avail the remedy / of statutory appeal before the competent authority or to raise a dispute under Section 1O of the ID Act. 11. Needless to say that if the petitioner files an app'ealazb‘efore the department same would be considered and decided with open mind after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case giving due opportunity to the petitioner, ignoring the point of limitation. However, if he raises a dispute under Section 10 of the ID Act, the competent Authority , shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 12. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. // // sdl‘mwaw Y{‘t.\“ker /’//V/ 3gdge