SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Chh) 126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Hanuman Singh S/o Shri Bhagwati Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Steel Authority Of India Limited Bhilai Steel Plant – Respondent
WPL No. 121 of 2016
Decided on : 05-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondents:Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate.

Point of Law: Labour Law – Imposition of penalty – No opportunity of hearing – Matter remitted back

Headnote:

Misconduct – Absent from duty - Imposition of punishment - Quantum of punishment-cataract operation and leave was credited in his leave account, but the respondent has not adjusted the leave and he was treated absent from duty – No opportunity of hearing.

Finding of the Court:

No reason whatsoever has been given by the respondents authority while rejecting the representation of the petitioner which shows non-application of mind and against the well settled principles of law and even administrative authority should have passed a reasoned order which has civil consequence-matter is remanded back to the authority to decide the appeal afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the authority shall pass a well reasoned order.

Result: Allowed

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition (L) assailing the order dated 6-2-2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondents authority whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the imposition of punishment has been rejected.

2. The petitioner has filed a case before Labour Court which was registered as Case No. 04/CGIR Act.(C)/2007. The facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner who was working as operator in Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg since 19-9-1987, remained absent on duty during period from 8-1-2005 to 26-12-2005 (149 days) without sanction of leave. It has been contended by the petitioner in his petition that he has undergone cataract operation and leave was credited in his leave account, but the respondent has not adjusted the leave and he was treated absent from duty. There was no willful intention not to report the duty, still he was charge-sheeted. It has been further contended that he has given the application and also received fit and unfit certificate from the respondent. He has also submitted an application for medical leave, he remained absent on duty on account of ill-health, but respondents authority has mala fidely issued charge-sheet on 28-4-2006 wherein no opportunity was given to defence his case. It has been alleged that the Enquiry Officer has promised him to give lesser punishment, therefore, he has admitted his guilt and misconduct, thereafter his services were terminated from service, therefore, he may be re-instated in service from back wages.

3. The respondents have filed their written statement denying the allegations made in the application contending that the performance of the petitioner was unsatisfactory and in the enquiry charges were found proved, therefore, punishment order has been contended. It has also been contended that departmental enquiry was conducted, in accordance with principles of natural justice after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner, therefore, he prayed for rejection of the application filed by the petitioner. Learned Labour Court vide its order dated 4-12-2009 has vitiated enquiry, against that the respondents’ management has preferred miscellaneous application before the Industrial Court which registered as 01/CGIR Act/111/2010, the Industrial Court vide its order dated 11-10-2010 set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and it has held that the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner is proper. Thereafter, learned Labour Court vide its order dated 20-1-2011 has rejected the application filed by the workman by recording a finding that the punishment is proportionate to misconduct.

4. It has been further contended that, against the said order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court and the same was also dismissed, and against that order he had preferred the instant writ petition (L) before this court which was registered as WPL No.3394 of 2011 and Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide its impugned order dated 27-7-2015 has dismissed the writ petition. Against that order, he has preferred the writ appeal before Division Bench of this Court. Hon’ble the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 12-7-2012 passed in Writ Appeal No. 487 of 2015 has dismissed the appeal with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation with regard to quantum of punishment. The operative portion of the order is extracted below

“3. Quantum of punishment primarily is prerogative of the employer. If the appellant represents with regard to the same, it does not preclude the respondents from considering it in accordance with law to their own satisfaction without being prejudiced by our reluctance to entertain this appeal”.

5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by Division Bench of this court, the petitioner has preferred a representation before the respondents authorities on 26-12-2015 wherein he has stated that he is an illiterate person and he was afraid with enquiry pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top