JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 05/04/2021 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPL/7730/2011 (Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant v. Industrial Court and another) whereby order dated 05/07/2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Court has been set aside and order dated 11/01/2011 (Annexure P-16) passed by the Labour Court has been affirmed by which appellant's claim has been dismissed.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :-

2.1. The appellant herein was appointed as Technical (Mechanical) in the S-3 Grade in respondent No. 1 company on 21/01/1998. He was subjected to chargesheet for remaining unauthorizedly absent for 183 days in between April, 2006 to June, 2007 on 26/07/2007 (Annexure P-9) and thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed on 01/09/2007 and during the course of the enquiry, the appellant is said to have admitted the charge of remaining unauthorizedly absent for a period of 183 days. Based on the unconditional acceptance of the charge by the appellant, enquiry report was submitted on 26/09/2007 (Annexure P-12) and consequently, by order dated 05/02/2008 (Annexure P- 14), the appellant was inflicted with penalty of removal from service with immediate effect.

2.2. The said order of removal dated 05/02/2008 (Annexure P-14) was put to challenge by the appellant before the Labour Court in an application filed by him under Section 31(3) of Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1960”) seeking reinstatement with back wages, however, the Labour Court did not interfere with the order of removal and vide order dated 11/01/2001 (Annexure P-16) rejected the said application filed by the appellant herein.

2.3. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court under Section 65 of the Act of 1960 which was allowed vide order dated 05/07/2011 (Annexure P-1) and the order of the Labour Court was set aside and appellant was directed to be reinstated but without back wages.

2.4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Court, the respondent No. 1 company i.e. Bhilai Steel Plant filed WPL/7730/2011 before this Court wherein learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Industrial Court and restored the order of the Labour Court against which this writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

3. Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that learned Single Judge is absolutely unjustified in granting the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 company thereby holding the appellant guilty of misconduct and justifying the order of removal from service ignoring the fact that the chargesheet was served to the appellant for alleged misconduct under Section 29(v) of the Standing Orders (Plant) applicable to the employees/workmen employed at the Bhilai Steel Plant which were determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 stating that he remained unauthorizedly absent for certain days totalling a period of 183 days from April, 2006 to June, 2007 without prior information/permission/sanction. As per Section 29(v) of the Standing Orders, the act of habitual late attendance and willful or habitual absence from duty without leave or without sufficient cause would be treated as 'misconduct', however, in the charge-sheet served to the appellant, it was nowhere alleged that absence of the appellant was deliberate or habitual, therefore, even if the misconduct is said to have been admitted by the appellant, but no misconduct in terms of Section 29(v) of the Standing Orders would be made out, as such, the order of learned Writ Court deserves to be set aside and the order of the Labour Court be restored.

4. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 company, would submit support the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and submit that appellant