K wWx/XV‘: //§’ :‘Q~\3\A,,4¢QZWVO{C&M /’ BILASPUR‘ / ‘ {s x V‘ dbb'é AWSWf‘WVkMc Mg m0 WP —W£“‘L €1£IGbZ>K L;}\€o V;~1‘N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT «(AW _ N9,—-——/——%-——S—------of 2008. g. 2. Heera Lal son of Rameshwar aged ‘Chowk Gudhiyari, Raipur, Distt-' Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2’26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS about 55 year§, Resident of Pahadi CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS ORDER OR ORDERS DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS: 9'“? ‘ .. $§v o PETITIONER é k r-L A amatw‘ sgat& $~hawr §m£e£ Dismmutt? w ’ / gmpaay mwwm Wmg‘n rEmw’oWe r 57" \Oo @A" " ‘.. wgimw Wm) a mm: mmsxm ms.) , “Wag?” u’ ’~ I v “3" 'uu ............( . a y F . ” VERSUS RESPONDENT : 1{ State Industrial Bench Bilaspur, (C.G.). ~ 6y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCEARH ; B%LA$F’UR WRIT PETiTlGN {LLNOJ25 OF 2908 RESPONDENTS Skate {naiustrial Court & Anather (Wrii Petiiion under Amdg 226 of the Constituticr: of india} Singie Bemh : Hen'bie Shri Sa‘tish K. Agnihatri .3. Present :~ Ms. Ranjna Jaiswai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri SP. Kafe, Advocate far the respondent M32. ORDER {QRAQ (Passed an this 8" ciay ef AWL 291. 1} 1. By this petifion, me peti?ionen’employer seeks i'o challenge the £egah'ty ahd vaiidity of the efder dated '13M2J209'i (Annexure P/3) passed by the 3tate industriai Court Chhattisgarh, Bench at Béiaspur in civii case No.29fCGIR AcfIAJEZOOi 2. Learned counsei appearmg for the petitioner/empioyer submits tmt ihe respondem NOQIempicyee was appcimed in the year 4988 ae Heiper. Swing the course of his service, he remairied absent fai" the fpemd from 0'i-O?’-1§93 to Decemiaer, 1%4. 'i‘heiea'iter, sevefai ietiersfmemo were sent to the {esponcient Nc2/‘empioyee and ever: ihe notices were aiso pubiiehed in the news papei'e on various eccasiens, bui the respendeni Ne2/empioyee ciid net apeee? before ‘ihe cencemed authority. Thereaitei’, enqiiiry proceedings Were initia€eci The reeperideet Ne2 appeareci before the enquiry efficer on i5-4-mg5. After compierion of rhe enquiry, the enquiry repaor’r was submitted on i9~5-i9§7’. On the basis of eaid enquiry report; the respendent No.2fempioyee was removed rrom service on 8-1 i-‘i 9%. Against the said Greer, the respencieni No.2iempioyee approached the Labour Court by fiiing ease Ne. 33/MPIR/98. The Labour Court dismrssed’ the eppiication by order dated ‘iG—t $30? {Annexure PH). 3. Thereagainst, the respondent Nc2iempioyee approached the industrial Court in appeai in civii ease Ne.29/i‘§GIR AotfAii/ZGIW, which wee aiioweci by the. industrial Court, directing petitioner/empioyee t0 reinstate the respendeni No.2/emroioyee in service withotrt back wages. The impugned order passed by the EET‘TEGNER Shhattisgarh State Sistyibutian Sampany Endustria? Court is iHegaL arbitrary and without appreciating the facts and cimumstances sf the case in its letter and spirit. Thus. this oetition. Having heard iearned counsei for ihe parties, perused the pieadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that ihe Labour Court dismissed the appiication fiied by the respondent No.2i'empioyee on the ground that he had faiied to prove that the petitioner had presented any appiication for grant of leave on the ground that he was sick. The Labour Court has not considered any aspect of the matter exceet this! when the reseendent No.2femoioyee had cieariy produced the copies of documents fiied before the authorities in the appeai. in apeeaii the industrial Court, having, examined the documents reappreciated the evidence, carne te the conciusion that the empioyee had sent the application through driver Munna and the third appiication, he had submitted himseifi No order was passed on his appiication and the resgmndent No.2i‘ernpioyee had even eroduced medicai certificates and other documents in support of his case that due to iiinessr he remained absent. Aocordingiy‘ the industriai Court held that the respondent No.2iempioyee had proved that he had made proper appiica‘tion and submitted reievant documents and, as such, it cannot be heid that he was guiity of misconduct being unauthorized absent. Accordingiys the appeai was aiiowed by granting reinstatement Without back wages. in the aforesaid background, the industriai Court was fuiiy competent to reappreciate the evidence and examine the documents, which were not property considered by the Labour Court and the finding on appreciation was perverse. Accordingly! the industriai Court had not committed any error and there was no irreguiarity and’iiiegaiity, Thus, no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the industriai Court. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is iiabie to and is herebv dismissed. No order asto U1 / Gowri Costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge