wf''il':,^ IXl'HE HIGH COURT OF J13bA:ATURE CHI-aTnsCftRH-^T^SZIiXSPHR W.P.NO.-t-7<?^ /2002 PETITIOHER VERSUS RESP01SIDEWST ^^^ .^.••''.^•'•"a.*< .--:^<\^-y;^.. ,.^s^^ ,<^°:.^ ^< .,^"" &8y •WTT EETmON_UNDEPAm'ICLE 226/227 OF THE COrl7STITTITION OF i N B i'& Darg- Bus Services Pvt. titd., G.E. Roafl, Durg Throagh its Managing Birctor, Binesh Tlwari ^/o S.H.Tiwarl, Ag-ed about 58 years, R/o Rajabandha, HotlparatBarg, Distt. Durg (CG). 15 Hardev Singh S/o Hohan Singh, Aged aboat 51 years.Brlver S/0 Prem Nagar,Sll<olabhatha, Durg, DIstt. Durg;. 2)The Presiding officer, Iiabour Court, Darg, Distt. Durg (CG). ^^"" x^ mOH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION No. 2307 of2002 Hardev Singh (Driver). RESPONDENTS VERSUS Presiding Officer, Laboyr Court, Durg & Another. Present: Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respon^ent No. 2. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRITPETITIONNo. 1761 of2002 Durg Bus Services Pvt. Ltd. VERSUS Hardev Singh & Another. Present: Shri Kunal Das, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent No. 1. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. ORDER fORALl •(Passed on 06ffl day ofApril, 2011) 1. Since challenge in both the above writ petitions are to the common order dated 04.02.2002, passed by the Labour Court, Durg, in Case No. 5/I.D.Act Reference/2000, both the writ petitions ase being disposed ofby tfais common order. 2. The petitioner, in W.P. No. 2307/2002, was the Driver employed in the establishment of the respondent No. 2, namely Durg Bus Services Pvt. Ltd., (the petitioner in the W.P. No. 1761/2002). The petitioner- Driver has challenged the order dated 04.02.2002 whereby the Labour Court has modified the order of removal passed by the respondent- establishment, withholding backwages, while directing his reinstatement to the post. •--— 3. The petitioner, in W.P. No. 1761 of 2002, is the establishment namely Durg Bus Service, wherein the respondent No. 1, Hardev Singh, was appointed as Driver. The petitioner-establishment has challenged order of the Labour Court, whereby^the Labour Court has directed to remstate the respondent No.J-Hardev Singh, in service, without back wages. 4. The leamed Labour Court, after having considered the submissions and facts, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-Driver has stated that he remained absent on the ground that he had leave m his accouat that is why he had remained absent without permission. It has been further recorded that the petitioner was a chronic absentee. After due enquiiy, the petitioner was removed from service. 5. On perusal ofthe impugned order, it appears that the Labour Court after considermg all the facts, came to the conclusion that imposition of punishment of removal from service was disproportionate. Accordingly, the same was modified and reinstatement was directed withholding back-wages, as punishment. In the instant petition, the petitioner-Driver has not challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order on any other aspect except that the respondent- establishment may be directed to pay the full back-wages from the date of temunatidn till the date of reinstatement. The establishment has challenged the order ofreinstatement on the ground that once the court below has held that the enquiry was held in accordance with law, then the question of mterfering with the quantum ofpunishment does not arise. The said contention does not merit acceptance as the Court below is competent to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The • Supreme Court, in Mavji C~Lakum v. Central Bank of India , observed as under: "23.. .So far the finding ofthe leamed Single Judge appears to be correct. However, the whole thrust of the judgment has changed merely because the Industrial Tribunal had found the mquiry to be fair and proper. The teamed Judge seems to be ofthe opinion that ifthe inquiiy is held to be fair and proper, then the Industrial Tribunal cannot go into the question of evidence or the quantum ofpunishment. We are afraid that this is not the correct law. " 6. The Supreme Court in Reetu Marbles v. Prabhakant Shukla , observed as under: "15. From the above observations it becomes apparent that payment of full back wages upon 'an order of termination being declared illegal cannot be granted mechanically. It does not automatically follow that reinstatement mwt be accompanied by payment offull back wages even for the period when the •workman remained out of service and contributed little or nothing to the industry." 7. The Supreme Court, in Abdul Razak (D) Thr. L.RS. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Others , observed as under: "2l...There have beenseveral other instances in which different High Cowts have passed orders in exercise ofpawer under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution oflndia disregarding the limitations identifled and indicated by this Cowt in several decisions on the exercise of that ' (2008) 12 SCC 726 2 (2010) 2 SCC 70 32010AIRSCW1414 ^ n pawer. We hope and trust that in futwe the HighCourts would keep in view the limitations of certiorari jwisdiction/ supervisory jwisdiction and refrain from deciding the writ petitions flled under Article 226 or petitions/applications flled imder Article 227 of the Constitution as if they are adjitdwating appeals filed against the orders ofthe lower coia-ts or other jiidicial/qvasi-jvdicial bodies/authorities." 8. The ratio laid down in the aforestated case has been referred with approval in Shalini ^hyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil4. 9. In the case on hand, no jurisdictional error, mfirmity or 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 mterfere with the impugned order which is legal, just.and proper. lO.Applying the well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe case, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. 11. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit (2010) 8 SCC 329 lllj