«/'\ 3mm THE HIGH comm OF QHHAmmGARH Am Bugging Writ petition Na. (9“0% /2ooz ($3.) Parmanand Bag, aged abou‘t 45 years, S/o. Lingdraj Das, Heliaer, W43, P'.N0.42508, Hindusthan Steel Ewb'rks Cons‘bruction Ltd, Bhilai, B/o.‘ Block No.21, Road, No...37, Sector-7 {ESCL Sector) BhilaL nagar, Distriéf; Burg (& ETI TIG NER/ APPLICAI Hindusthan steel Works Construction Limited, Through : Group General Manager, Bhilai, PA). Bhilai, District Durg, (C.G.). 2. Industrial Court, Shankar Hagar, P.O .& District Baipur. 3. Labour Court, Utai Road, P.0. & D trict mrg (C.G.). $ET1T10N 11mm ARTELE 226/g27 OF om; oommnomn OF mom FQR ;s§mnLcg Q? A mm OF cgTxomm; AND MANDAMUg am ANY Q “HER "’?iT/Dm£CTIJN/0 RDEE‘ t ‘A 7> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. : H TISH J. ON’BLE MR SA K. AGNIHOTRI RN VVRIT PETITION N0.608 OF 2002 Parmanand Das VefSUS Hindustan Steel Works Constmction Limited and othem Post for 4f§~2906 Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Jff‘ Judge 29-2006 > 77 HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR N SB. : HON’BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI J. M WRIT PETITION NO.608 OF 2002 Petitioner Pannanand Das VGI‘SUS Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited and others Resgondents Present : Ms. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Koshy, counsel for respondent No. 1. ORDER (Passed on if f‘ of September, 2006) The petitioner was removed from service by order dated 21-3-1987 (Annexure P—l) while working as Helper-W6 with I respondent No.1 — Construction Company by the General Manager ofrespondent No.1 - Construction Company. 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved the Labour Court and the Labour Conrt, by award dated 22-4-1998 (Annexure P—2), allowed the application of the petitioner and found that the charge of misconduct a1leged against the petitioner was not proved. The petiiioner was accordingiy reinstated in son/ice without back wages. The Labour Coutt did not assign any reason for not granting back wages, which, in normal circumstances, is a natural consequence of reinstatement in service. 3. The Industrial Court, in appeal, by its common order dated 23-11-2001 (Annexure P—3), dismissed the appeal No.138fM.P.l.R.Act/98 filed by the petitioner against denial of grant of back wages and also the appeal No.134/M.P.I.R.Act/98 filed by respondent No.1 - Construction Company against the order of reinstatement. The Industrial Court, While agreeing with the finding of the Labour Court, recorded that the charge alleged against the petitioner was of theft and the Labour Court was right in not granting back wages keeping in View that the petitioner was allegedly charged for theft of the goods of respondent No.1 - Construction Company. 4. The Labour Court has not examined any aspect of the case. The Labour Court further did not examine as to whether the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere and the application of the petitioner impugning the order of termination was allOWed not on the ground of any technicality but on the clear tinding recorded by the Labour Court that the charge of then alleged against the 7g accordingly not proved. the record ofthe case‘ . of Medical Education & date ofreinstatement ofhis sewicas. 2005 AIR SCW 2646 (2001) 2 SCC 54 ‘ ’7 7 8. The petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is entitled to grant of 50% of the back wages as stated above. No order as to costs. Ceréified copy as per mles. sE/f r i, Satish K. Agnihotri Judge woeooew‘ Gopal