'sse [fl; .1<>... ,,i. lf- m; W. P. I'L) No. 2360 of 2007 'ersus ffopal Krishai Paliwal 5/o Shrj Pilalal Jj Paliwol, Age about 50 years R/o Paliwal Lodge, Bus itand Jaiara Patan, &istt. JhaliAad (Rqjsthan) 1. C6. Infrastt-ucfure &ev. Corp. Tlirouqh- Divisioncl Manager (Trcnsport Sectiort) Bilaspur (C.6.) [ndustria! Court Through- Member Judge Raipur (C.6.) Presidinq Officer, Labour Covrt, Bifaspur (C.G.) /V yn ^.^. Wri Petition under Articles_226/227 of the Cons+ilution of India . Unn'kl^ .<.<! [tish K. Agnil Pressnt; Mr. 5.P. Ka'e, Advocate for the petitioner. (Passed on l7? bey of Aprii, 2007) 3y this petitfon, the petitioner challenges the legaiity and validity of the order dated 30.6.2CX36 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Lobour Court, •isaspur in case No. 48/C©IR/20M and order dated 20.12.200. (Annexure P-14) passed by the State Industria! Court, Chhattisgarh. Raipur in Civi! Appeai No. 54/C&IR Act/A-II/2006, confirming the order passed (* by -the Labour Court whefeunder the appiication of the petitioner wos A^aJ 2. Tne indisputab!e facts in nuTsi iel! ar'e that the petitioner fiied upplication uno'eir Section 31(3) read wi'th Section 61 of Chhottisgarh Industr-iol Relation <*ct, 1960 chailenging the order dated 16.5.1995 passsd ''I •V-, ® passed by the respondent No. l. The petitioner' wos appointed os Conductor by the er'stwhite Madhya Pradesh Stwf'e Road Transport Corpor-ation on 14.10.1976. The petitioner wos Ci'assified as booking agent vide opder dated S.2.2993. The petitioner in the meantime wos transferred from Byarra ^epot. Rqjgorh (M.P.) to Biiaspur (C.©.)bivision. The petitioner objected to the said tr'ansfer order. The charge sheet wcs issued. The petitioner did not subfflft ary response/reply to the charge sheet. .Accordingly, the enquiry was proceeded ex-parte. The Labou" Court after framing the issue and affor-ding the oppQrtunity of hear-ing to t'ne petitioner/employee and the employer came to the conciusion that the enqui"y was ex-parte, as such invaiid. It was the reaponsf'biliri,' of the respondent No. 1 to prove tfie char-ge sgainst the petitioner/empioy'ee. =-'t F? •E?, The Labour Court after considering a!i the faets and examining documsnts came to the conciusi'on that the petitioner was guilty of serious mis- conduct and consequently, Jt was held that tiie termination order- and proper. The apptication of the petitioner was accor'dingly dismisss vide order dated 30.6.2(X)6 (Annexurs P-13) passed by the Presidin< Offlcer, Lcbour Court, Bilaspur. 4. Being cggrieved and djs-sattefied with the order, the petitioner moved Civil ^ppeal No. 54/CeiRAct/A-TI/2006 before the State Industria! Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. The Industria! Court up-he'd the findings recordec by the Labour Court as under;- "5. ......... ^ ITOR qi'fqpSt ^t? qiaM ^ 31T&TR IR ^t ^Tg' W[ftia t f^i ct>4isii<i ^ 'ufH^raR ci'<9ift< sn.i? q uCT'iRaa wiFifcRiiT WfFT TR f^q^f •Xl?<7 ^f^t 3fh( qf ^cTT ^ 3CTf8n^T WT ^ ^^^S^S:^wiis"^fs:w-^ sf^rRsra' ~%r t ^T ucpr? ^.^i..Ht. l2{l}^t} ^ sraifa iNt^ ''fcL.. yifl';"! TcFZn ^ I" "6. ............ ftRiqd (1N TR cpfqrft ^ WTRraf^T TOFr TT? IWR 3ff^ ^ TTCTFi ^ UT|I^ | TI^T ^ aft 3lt? ^m ^ ^FTTPT Vcti TTTg tt^p STFIT&^cT WI ^ 3)^l|ReRT -%T arr ^ft .BTEIT? TR "3WP f^-S)^ SIRtlT tRf f^TT u^fri R'<11<fl^l ulfq WufeT cp<^' ~^ IRqTrt BWpt ^qP? WTP<T 4?T Tlf aft | ysil<l 'H ayil'HI diT ?11T :Sfwf Stf^vfcS t ?rf^ q?t$ ifl cti4'!ll<i u1l'1^|ct3< 'f^T|T ^. ^ ^rft&ld <l 3Fitrf^aKI ^?oT t tft Fi^''icMi cpr ?rg' SffE'IqiT^ UTT<T 6KIT t f^i cti4q|<l * f^s^ fqwft^T crohrCt' q^ 'g^ ^sW- STCI fei T|^ TpfR ci.<iq<"f ^ f^Rt 'idwiSt ^grzf WTP?T q^ ^rw t I" I have heard iearned counsej appearing for the petitione" and per-used the documents and Judgments and orders by the Courts below. It is svident that the findings "ecorded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the Industr'iai Court, was passed on sufficient evidences and it was proved on the basis of evidence thot the petitioner/employee committed serious mis-conduct by not complying with the transfer- order and remaining absent for about one month. Thus, the consequenti(!l order of ter-mination was properly heid just and propsr. 6. It is »-ei! settied principie of Iwi that this Court, whiie exercising its jurisdiction under Arttele 226 of the Constitution of India, has limited jurisdiction to the extent of revieipng the case, in the event, there js perversity, irF-eguiarity in the process of decision, not in the decision jtself. 7. In view of ths foregoing, the petitjon deserves to be and is dismissed. No Subbosh Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge