^ IN THE fflGH COUKT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. 30 /200E- Petitiuner Versus Respiwlents •'•^v~ ..<"^' ^•".^•"' '^•' .^•^.y'^'' .^.^c^ ^^y^ ^••'A^ ~ y' ^^ ^^ 1. 2. 3. Steel Authority oflndia Ltd., through its Managing Director Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District: Dw-s- (C.Q.) Shri D.N.Dewangan S/o Shri Budhram Dewangan, Ex-Grinder - Cum-Pulpit Operator, Plate Mill, BSP, Bhilai, P.No.136447, T.No.51950 C/o Kailash Nagar, Housing Board, Bhilai, Dist : Durg - (C.G.) State Industrial Court Bench Raipur, 16- HIG, KrishnaSadar, ShankarNagar, Raipur (C.G.) Tfae Presiding OflBcer Labour Cou(fDurg (c.a) ^" MRITPETITIONUNDEIIARTICLE226^27 OFTHECONSTITUTION OFBNDIA -_.._— >^-/' I'Oi- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0. 30 OF 2002 Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Shri D.N. Dewangan & others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of Indi; Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate for the respondent No . ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 8th day ofApril, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226/22' of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 08.09.2001 (^ inexure P/1) passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur in Civil Appeal \o. 162/ MPIR AcVII/A/2000 (Shri D.N. Dewangan v. Managing ~>irector, Stee/ Authority of India & others) whereby and wherei der the petitioner-Steel Authority of India Limited (for short "the e, oloyer") was directed to reinstate the first respondent-D.N. Dewa jan (for short "the employee") in service without back wages. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, for disposal of the case are that the employee while working as Grinder/Chipper-Ci n-Pulpit Operator in the establishment of the employer was issued charge sheet dated 18.05.1989 (Annexure P/2) containing ch -ges of disobedience of lawful orders of superior officer, misbeha' 3ur and abusing employees working with him in his shift. Prope enquiry was held and on enquiry as a sequel "warning" was is ued on 30.11.1989 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, one more sho cause ,/ s ^-r ! '-" ' notice was issued on 13.03.1991 (Annexure P/4) a ng with statement of charges framed against the employee. Sta sment of charges read as under: /. Malingering and slowing down of work under clause 29 (vi) of the Standing Order (Plant). //. Disobedience of lawful and reasonable order of superiors under clause 29 (i) of the Standing Order (Plant). ///, Non observance of safety measures and rules under clause 29 (iii) of Standing Order (Plant). IV. Causing willful loss to the company under clause 29 (xi) ofthe Standing Order (Plant). A proper enquiry was conducted and all the charges as af estated were found proved in the enquiry report (Annexure P/5) On the basis of the enquiry report by order dated 26.09.1991 (/ inexure P/6) the employee was removed from service. Being aggrieved by the removal order, the employee pn erred a case before the Labour Court under Section 31 (3 of the M.P./C.G. Industrial relations Act, 1960 (for short" the Ac 1960"). The Labour Court after examining all the aspects of the m ter and considering the submission, pleadings and the documents Filed by the parties by order (Annexure P/9) found that the enquiry ras not in accordance with law and the same was held as bad. In appeal to the Industrial Court, the Industrial Court by orc r dated 20.03.1995 (Annexure P/10) set aside the order passei by the Labour Court and held that the enquiry was valid 3nd in 'a..,.;.. :/ \ '•• & accordance with law. In view of that, the matter was remi id again to the Labour Court for decision on merit. 6. Thereafter, the Labour Court by order dated 13.10.1997 ( nnexure P/11) held that in view of the fact that the enquirywas ust and proper. There was no reason to interfere with the pu shment. Thereagainst the employee preferred an appeal bc ire the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court by order dated Oi 39.2001 upholding the finding of the Industrial Court passed es ier with regard to validity of enquiry, held that the employee rem ned out of service for about 10 years, thus the punishment was ufficient and the employee ought to be reinstated in service with ut back wages. Thus, this petition. 7. Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the employer submits that once the enquiry has been found just and propei and no perversity or illegality has been noticed by the Court, ther was no reason to quash the order of removal and grant reinstat nent in service. 8. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the employee; iubmits that the employee was away from service for about 1 years, refusal of back wages is enough punishment, as the harges alleged against the employee were not found prove in its entirety. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the sarties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended there . 10. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Court eiow is ia6<.. cfd~ 11 12. a supervisoryjurisdiction. The scope ofthe High Court is i normal course is limited to interfere only in cases of irregularity, i sgality in procedure or perversity in the order. This Court does no sit as an appellate Court over finding of facts. So far as finding of icts with regard to misconduct alleged against the employee is c' icerned, the same have been found proved and there is no reasi i to take any contrary view, as even otherwise on perusal of the d ;uments it has been found that the enquiry was conducted in proper, regular and legal manner. No perversity has been noticc . Thus, no interference is warranted with the findings of the Coi t below. Once it has been held that the enquiry was proper and thi charges alleged against the employee have been found proved, e Court below has no option to quash the order of removal r direct reinstatement, in cases, it may be modified. The reason that the delinquent employee i.e. responc nt No.1 herein remained away from service for about 10 yeai that is enough punishment is not just and proper. In all cases hen the matters are pending consideration before the judicial Co 'ts or in the enquiry, the delinquent employee always remains c t of job that alone cannot be a ground for interfering with the pu shment when it has admittedly been found that the allec tion of misconduct has been proved against the delinquent emplc se. The Supreme in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Ci il India Ltd. & Anr. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhari & Ors.1, obs ved as under: ' 2009 AIRSCW 5596 .ai-m -^ A 13. 14. 15. "18. It has been time and again said that it is not open to the High Court to examine the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as a Court of Appeal and reach its own conclusions and that power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. In a case such as the present one where the delinquent admitted the charges, no scope /s left to differ with the conclusions arhved at by'the Inquiry Officer about the proof of charges. In the absence of any procedural illegality or irregularity in conduct of the departmental enquiry, it has to be held that the charges against the delinquent stoocf ' proved and warranted no interference." It is not a case of applicability of doctrine of proportionality holding that the removal was disproportionate and shocking. The Industrial Court has treated the time taken in the judicial Court for deciding the case as sufficient punishment, which is not permissible and unsustainable. For the reasons mentioned the hereinabove, the order passed by the Industrial Court with regard to reinstatement of the employee is hereby set aside. As an upshot, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Arun Sd/- Satuh K. ^nlhotri Judge