m:y:^ BEFORE THE HQN'BLE IBGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CC.G.'j INTHEMATTEROF:- W.F.NO. '2-30 7/2002 PETmONER; ..^ HARDEVSmGH (DRIVER) <fO.SHRI MOHAN SINGH, AGED51 YRS. ^°<.,y ^•'..^" .,<*•' ,^r •ftl'V^if J>f^-'-OtlKl IVlUItAtN OUN(-m, ^^k^p^PREM NAGARSIKOLABHATA, DURG ^^/y-^ '^ DISTT. DURG (M.P.) (NQW C.G.) ^^.}' . ((^' . 1.y <^c^^''r- •\\ ^i. ;.^ YERSUS ^v"^ -&ESPONDENT: , I. PRESIDING OFFICER, ^'' LABOURCOURT. DURG RESPONDENT: 2. MANAGER,DURG SERVICES (P) SECONDPARTY LIMITED,G.E.ROAD,DURG(M.P.) (NOWC.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIGLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIAFQRTHEISSUANCE OFA ^yRITOF CERTIORARIORANY OTHERAPPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER ORDIRECTION WHICHTHIS HON'BLECOURT MAY DEEM FIT. il &!1 mGH GOURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRITPETITIONNo. 2307 of2002 Hardev Singh (Driver). RESPONDENTS VERSUS Presiding OfFicer, Labour Court, Durg &Another. Present: Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent No. 2. m PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 1761 of2002 Durg Bus Services Pvt. Ltd. VERSUS Hardev Singh & Anofher. 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'bie Sliri Satish K. Aehiliotri. J. ORl»ERfORAI,V •(Passedou 06th day ofAprU, 2011) 1. Since challenge inboththeabbYewritpetitionsareto the common order dated 04.02.2002, passedbythe Labour Court, Durg,in Case No. 5/[.D.Act Reference/2000, both the writ petitions are being disposed ofby this common order. 2. The petitioner, in W.P. No. 230V2002, was the Driver employed in the establishment ofthe respondent No. 2, namely Durg Bus Seryices Pvt. Ltd., (fhe petitioner in the W.P. No. 1761/2002). THe.petitkiner- Driver has challenged the order dated 04.02.2002 wherebytheLabQur Court has modified the order of removal passed by the|Tespondent- w establishment, witKholding 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 reinstate the respondent I^o. 1-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 in his account fhat is why he had remained absent without permission. It has been further recorded that the petitioner was a chronic absentee. After due enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Labour Coiirt after considering all the facts, carae to the conclusion that imposition of punishment of removal &om service was disproportionate. Accordmgly, 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 terminatioh till the date -of reinstatement. The establishment has challenged the order of reinstatement on the ground that once the court below has held that the enquiry was held in accordance with law, then the question ofmterfermg with the quantum ofpunishment does not arise. The said contention does not merit acceptance as the Court •f-y^: r '"* n a f '3 iWX I. '';^-. "^ below is competent to interfere with the quantum ofpunishment. 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 inquuy to be fair and proper. Th^ leamed Judge seems to be offhe opinion that iftheinqutry is held to be fair and proper, then the Industrial Tribimal cannot go into the question of evidence or fhe quantum ofpunishment. We are a&aid fhat this is not th'e correct law. " 6. The Supreme Gourt in Reetu Marbles V. Prabhakant Shukla , observed as under: "15. From the abowe observations it becomes apparent that payment of full back •wages upon an order of terminatwn being declared illegal cannot be granted meehanically. It does not automatically follaw that reinstatetnent must be accompanied by payment offull back •wages even for the perwd •when the •workman remained out of service and contributed little or nothing to the indiistry." 7. The Supreme Court, in Abdul Razak (D) Thr. L.RS. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Others , observed as under: "21...There hccve been several other instances in which different High Courts havepassed orders in exercise ofpawer under Arttcles 226 or 227 of the Constitutionoflndia disregarding th^ limitations identified and \ indicated by this Court in several decisions on the exercise of that ' (2008) 12 SCC 726 2 (2010)28cc 70 32010AIRSCW1414 m ^^-.y^f^ ^ 'SS-S^i '^ '^ k-^'./ power. We hope and trust that in future the High Cowts •would keep in. view the limitations of certiorari jurisdiction/ supervisory jurisdiction and refrain from deciding the writ petitions filed under Article 226 or petitions/applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution as if they are adjudwatmg appeals flled against the orders ofthe lower courts or other jiidicial/guasi-Judicial bodies/authorities." 8. The ratio laid down in the aforestated case has been referred wifh approval in Shalini ShyamShetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil4. 9. In the case on hand, no jurisdictional error, infirmity or irregularity has been pointed out. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of fhe Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which is legal, just.and proper. lO.Applying the well settled pnaciples oflawto the facts ofthe case, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. 11. There shall be no order asto eosts. SdA SatishK-Agnihotri Judge Amit (2010) 8 SCC 329