ORDER :

1. By this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the orders dated 12.10.2006 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Industrial Court in Civil Appeal No.25/CGIR Act/A-II/2006, Kanoi Paper & Industries Limited Vs. Punjab N. Ukale, order dated 07.03.2006 (Annexure P/2) passed by the learned Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 272/MPIR/96 (wrongly typed as 277/MPIR/96) in case of Punjab N. Ukale Vs. Kanoi Paper & Industries Limited and order dated 06.04.2004 (Annexure P/3) passed in Case No. 272/MPIR/96.

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the Petitioner, are that the Petitioner/Respondent No.3 herein had filed an application (Annexure P/4), which was registered as Case No.272/MPIR/96 under Section 31 (3) of MPIR Act before the Labour Court, Bilaspur, inter-alia pleading therein that he was working with Petitioner herein for last 12 years. He fell sick on 06.04.1995, therefore, he sent a medical certificate (Annexure P/4A) on 10.04.1995 which has been received by the Petitioner. After recovering from his illness, he reported for duty on 05.08.1995. The Petitioner issued charge-sheet dated 26.07.1995 and a departmental inquiry was conducted and after being found guilty, the Petitioner terminated his services on 14.10.1996. Further ground taken in the application is that the departmental inquiry and termination of service is illegal, the punishment imposed on the Applicant is dis-proportionate to the misconduct committed by him and, as such, liable to be interfered under Section 107 (a) of MPIR Act and prayed that he be reinstated with full back wages.

3. The Petitioner herein contested the case denying the allegation that the Respondent No.3 neither gave any information on 08.04.1995 regarding his illness nor any medical certificate has been received by the Petitioner herein on 10.04.1995. On 26.07.1995, the Petitioner herein issued a charge-sheet (Annexure P/5) levelling charges, which remained un-served. When the Respondent No.3 appeared before the Petitioner herein on 04.08.1995, the charge-sheet was served. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 submitted his explanation on 07.08.1995, which was not satisfactory and Departmental Enquiry was initiated. On 30.12.1995 and 03.01.1996, the Respondent No.3 appeared in the Departmental Enquiry but did not demand for any document or list of witnesses. The Respondent No.3 prayed for engagement of co-worker in the Departmental Enquiry and sought time, which was allowed and the proceeding was adjourned till 01.01.1996. The Respondent No.3 has not raised any objection regarding appointment of Enquiry Officer before the Enquiry Officer. The Respondent No.3 remained absent in the departmental enquiry despite the notice of hearing on 02.03.1996. The Enquiry Officer, in compliance of principles of natural justice, has again sent a notice for his appearance on 02.04.1996 and it was also published in the Nav Bharat on 06.04.1996 but the Respondent No.3 remained absent, as such, his right to defend was closed. Thereafter, the Petitioner sent a show cause notice and enquiry report on permanent and local address of Respondent No.3. That apart, the Petitioner also published show cause notice on 28.06.1996 in the daily Nav Bharat giving him 10 day’s time to reply the same, however, the Respondent No.3 had not submitted any reply and remained absent. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court, vide its order dated 06.04.2004 (Annexure P/3), vitiated the departmental enquiry on the count that Shri Pradeep Saxena who was the Enquiry Officer, junior of Shri H.N, Vyas, Advocate, who was the retainer counsel of the Company and along with charge-sheet, copy of the complaint has not been provided to the Respondent No.3 by the Petitioner. After vitiating departmental enquiry, the Petitioner examined Shri Sunil Mishra to prove the misconduct of the of the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 also examined himself before the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court ignoring the evidence and material on record, vide it