Digitally signed by ASHISH A TI S W H A IS R H I TIWARI Date:

2025.12.19 +0530

2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(L) No. 25 of 2014 Somsul Hoda, S/o Lt Ashrafuddin, aged about 52 years, R/o Qr. No. 20-A, Avenue-C, Sector-2, PS City Kotwali, Sector-6, Bhilai Nagar, Post Office Sector-1, Bhilai Nagar, Distt. - Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus

1 - State Industrial Court Raipur, Police Station, City Kotwali, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Ltd, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Nagar, PS Bhilai Bhathi, Po Sector-1, Bhilai Nagar, Distt Durg, Chhattisgarh Respondents For Petitioner : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. A.Sandhaya Rao, Advocate.

For Respondent No.2 : Shri Vikram Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order on Board

02/12/2025 Challenged in this writ petition is to the order dated 24/01/2014 passed by the State Industrial Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 31/C.G.I.R.Act/A/11/2013 filed under section 31(3)/61 CGIR Act.

2. Fact in Short:- The petitioner was appointed as Junior Operator Trainee with the respondent on 24/02/1982 (S-3 Grade). Charge-sheet dated 28/08/2010 (Annexure P- 2) was given to the petitioner indicating that he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty without leave, which is a misconduct under Section 29 (v) of the Standing Order (Plant) of the respondents. The enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and it has been stated in his statement recorded during enquiry (Annexure P/4) that he remained unauthorizedly absent for a total period of 315 days. Thereafter, the enquiry report was submitted, order of punishment was passed and thereby a penalty of removal from service was imposed on him with immediate effect vide order dated 25-05-2011 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner, thereafter challenged the order of removal from service (Annexure P/5) before the learned Labour Court and the case was registered as No. 59/CGIR Act/2011. By order dated 06/03/2013 the learned Labour Court set aside the Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner. However, this order was not challenged by the respondents in any further proceedings. Vide order dated 02/07/2013, the learned Labour Court reinstated the petitioner in service but no back wages were ordered. Challenging the same, the petitioner as-well-as the respondents filed an appeal before the State Industrial Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the order of reinstating the petitioner in service was set aside. The appeal filed by the petitioner for grant of back wages was however, dismissed.

Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Industrial Court has committed an error in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and allowing the appeal of the respondents. He submits that the learned Industrial Court misread the provisions of Section 29(v) of Standing Order (Plant) of the respondents, and thus committed an error of law in passing the impugned order. He submits that though the petitioner has admitted the charge, the respondents were duty-bound to prove the charge by leading cogent and clinching evidence. He further submits that though the petitioner has admitted the charge of being unauthorizedly absent from duty, looking to his long service period, infliction of punishment of removal from service is too harsh, and being so, case of the petitioner ought to have been considered sympathetically particularly when he has given cogent reason for his unauthorized absence. He further submits that the charge which was leveled against the petitioner i.e. of unauthorized absence from duty without leave is not a misconduct as per Section 29 (v) of the Standing Orders (plant). He further submits that there is no charge with regard to habitual late attendance and willful or habitual absence from duty without leave or without s