##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:6658

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPL No. 4742 of 2011

Order Reserved on 04.11.2025

Order Pronounced on 05.02.2026

Order Uploaded on 05.02.2026

Kudumulla Yahosua S/o Late Yesudass, Resident of Qtr. No. 6/6, Street-28, Av. B.

VII, Bhilai Nagar (C.G.).

... Petitioner

versus

Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Girja Shankar Singh and Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni,

Advocate

For Respondent : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

CAV Order

1.

By way of filing of present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the legality, propriety and correctness

of the order dated 07.08.2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (for

short ‘Industrial Court’) in Civil Appeal No. 56/CGIR ACT/A-11/2007 (Annexure P-1)

whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated

29.05.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Durg (for short ‘Labour Court’) in Case No.

4/CGIR Act.Civil/2006 (Annexure P-2) was affirmed.

2

2.

The facts as reflected from the pleadings are that the petitioner was

appointed to the post of Plant Attendant (S-1 Grade) in Bhilai Steel Plant vide

appointment order dated 01.11.1999 and was allotted Personnel No. 942277 and Token

No. 36319. It is pleaded that the petitioner’s mother owing to her old age was suffering

from chronic ailments including Asthma and Arthritis requiring constant medical

treatment and care. On account of the said compelling family circumstances, the

petitioner could not attend duties regularly though he consistently informed the

department whenever leave was required. It is further pleaded that the petitioner

himself suffered from Hepatitis and was hospitalized, and was declared medically unfit

for the period 02.01.2004 to 31.01.2004. A charge-sheet dated 23.08.2004 (Annexure

P-3) alleging misconduct of habitual absence without leave was issued. The petitioner

submitted his explanation. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no fair or proper

departmental enquiry was conducted. He was summoned by the Enquiry Officer on

22.09.2004 and was allegedly prevailed upon to admit the charges with an assurance

that a lenient view would be taken. Under such pressure, the petitioner admitted the

charges pursuant to which the enquiry report (Annexure P-4) was submitted.

Consequently, the petitioner’s services were terminated vide order dated 18.03.2005.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an application before the Labour

Court, Durg under Section 31(3)/61 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960

which came to be rejected without recording adequate reasons. The appeal preferred

before the Industrial Court, Raipur also met the same fate vide impugned order dated

07.08.2007. Hence this writ petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet was not

issued within the prescribed period of one year and is thus unauthorized. It is further

contended that the charge-sheet was not issued in accordance with the Standing Orders

(Plant). No finding has been recorded in the departmental enquiry that the petitioner’s

absence was willful or intentional which is a sine qua non for sustaining the charge of

3

unauthorized absence. It is submitted that both the Labour Court and the Industrial

Court erred in holding that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the termination was

legal and justified. He further submits that the charge-sheet dated 23.08.2004 issued to

the petitioner is wholly unauthorized as the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 (for short Rules of 1963) are applicable. Under the said

Rules, the issuance of a minimum of three charge-sheets within a year constitutes

minor misconduct as prescribed under Rule 12(थ) of the Rules of 1963. He submits

that issuance of further charge-sheets would fall within the category of major

misconduct attracting major penalties. He furthe