^^ ^ F A f' HIGH CQURT OP JUDJCATURE CHHATTI8GARH: BILASPUR Sin^e Bench: Hon»bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. WRIT PBTITION N0. 4408 OF 1994 Petitioner General Manager, Bengal Cotton Mffls, (A Umt of National TextUe Corporation M.P. Ltd. Indore) Rainaadgaon. Versus Respondents :1. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Secretary to fhe Cjovt. of Madhya Pradesh, Labour Departraent, Bhopal. 2. Industdal Court of Madhya Pradesh, Raipur Bench, HIG-16, Shankar Nagar, Raipur. Distarict Rajuaadgaou (C.G.). 3. Budhiyarin Bai, wife of NipUu Das,Tulsipur, District-Rajnandgaon Present: Shri N.K. Vyas, counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agi'awal, Counsel for the respondents No. 3. ORAL ORDBR (9th January, 2006) Heaid. 1. This writ petition ffled under Ardcles 226 & 227 of the Constitiition of India is directed agaiast fhe common order passed by fhe Industrial Court, Bench at Raipur, in case No. 32/MPIR/92 and Appeal No. 50/MPIR/92 on 6.9.1994 (Annexure-VI). 'l 2. The respondent No. 3 was eng^ed on daUy-wages as unskiUed worker on temporary basis. The petitioner was seryed a charge sheet for coraniittiag aa offence of theft froni the mill on 17.11.1980 aad domestic enquiry was conducted, wherein the respondent No. 3 participated ia fhe enquuy and charge of theft was foiind proved. As a result, fhe service of fhe respondent No. 3 was termuiated by order dated 14.1.1981 (Annexure P-II). 3. Beiag aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 31 (3) ofthe M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (Hereinafter referred to as "MPIRA") prayiag fhat fhe enquiry conducted against her was not proper aad fhe sole charge of theft, which has been foxind, proved ia fhe enqidry was also bad. The Labour Court by its oider dated 29.4.1982 (Annexure-III) rejected her appUcation agamst the order dated 14.1.1981. The petitioner preferred an appeal beiag fhe appeal No. 320/MPIR/82 in the Industrial Court. The Industnal Court vide order dated 7.10.1983 (Annexure-IV), set-aside the order dated 29,04.1982, passed by the Laboiir Coiut aad reinitted back fhe niatter to the Laboiir Court for fresh decision after giviag aa opportuiiity of hearing to fhe petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 ia order to prove fhe miisconduct ofthe respondent No. 3. 4. Labour Court Rajnaadgaon, after having afforded aa opporttinity of hearing to bofh fhe parties caoie to fhe conclusion fhat the respondent No. 3 had couiiuitted niisconduct of fheft of the conipany's property vide order (^4> dated 28.01.1992 (Annexure-V). However m exercise of its power under Section 107-A of fhe MPIRA, directed rcuistateinent offhe respondent No. 3 wifhout back wages. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner ffled aa appeal before fhe Industrial Court, beiag appeal No. 32/MPIR/92 chaUengiag the order of rcmstatement, passed by the Labour Court. The respondent No.3 also ffled aa appeal No. 50/MPIR/92 chatlenguig fhe order of Labour Court, whereby the Labour Court has held that she was found guilty of misconduct of fheft of coBipaay's property and she was denied fhe back-wages. The Industdal Court by fhe cominon order dated 6.9.1994, aUowed fhe appeal filed by fhe respondent No. 3 aad disniissed the appeal filed by fhe nianagement (petitioner hereia) holdmg that fhe Labour Court had not examined all fhe depositions aad facts of the case before commg to fhe coaclusion fhat fhe respondent No. 3 was guUty of conunitting aa offence of fheft of coiapaay's property. Accordiagly, the Industorial Court directed reinstatenient wifh full back wages. 6. Beiag aggrieved, fhe maaagement/petitioner has fUed fhis petition chatlengmg the impugned order dated 6.9.1994 passed by fhe Industrial Court. 7. Shri N.K.Vyas, leamed counsel appearmg for tiie petitioner submits that fhe Labour Court was justified ia holdiag that she has coinniitted an ofiFence of fheft of coinpaiiy's property, in view of adraission ia her deposition. Learaed counsel fiirther subniitted fhat fhe Labour Court has not considercd ^ the deposition of security guards because fhe respondent No. 3 hersetf had adxnitted her offence. 8. Shn H.B. Agrawal, learaed Senior Counsel wifh Shri Paakaj Agrawal, learaed counsel appearing for fhe respondent No, 3, per contra, submitted m support offhe unpugned order that fhe findiag of facts recorded by fhe Labour Court was peryerse. The Labour Court has not considered fhe clear stateinent of fhe securily guards to the effect fhat fhey had not caught fhe respondent No. 3 carryuig wifh an.y bag while gouig out of fhe iniU^s premises. It was fhe case of fhe respondent No. 3 fhat she found bag outside the mill prcmiises which contaiaed certaia ardcles aad she had adinitted the articles present ia the said ba^ aad had not accepted fhe offence conunitted by her. 9. I have heard learaed counsel for fhe pardes aiid perused the records, I aca of fhe view fhat the Labour Court has coininitted niarufest error in not considering clear depositions of seciuily guards, whereia fhey had clearly aad unamb^uously stated fhat fhey had not seen her carryiag aay bag froni iaside fhe preniises, she was caught outside fhe preniises wifh fhe bag, which contamed certaia articles. The fact of ardcles found ixi fhe bag has been admitted by the respondent No. 3. The Industrial Court has carefuUy exainined all the facts and depositions before coniiug to fhe conclusion fhat theft has not been found proved, The facts recorded by the Industnal Court are justified aad supported by fhe proper evidence aad cogent reasons. •"^" L?abhj 10. For fhe reasons stated above, it does not warrao^t for any mterference with fhe order passed by the Industrial Coiirt m exercise of power of fhis court under Ardcles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Further on the facts of back wages, when the petitioner was employed on daily wage basis aad she remamed outside fhe job for about 11 years from 14.1.1981 to 21.1.1992, ia view of the long period mvolved, aad no work was perfonned by the respondent No. 3, granting 100% faU back wages would be wholly iaappropriate and burden on the einployer, when fhe compaay has been closed. 11. In fhe facts and circumstances offhe case, 30% back wages would be suf&cient ia fhe interest of justice. The petition is atlowed to fhe above extent. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge