W.P.No.2029/2005

Page 1 of 9

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition No.2029 of 2005

Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co.

Ltd. (CSPDCL), Durg (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Mohd. Anees, S/o Mohd. Wahid, Daily Wage Driver,

Stationpara, Ward No.1, Street No.4, Rajnandgaon, Presently

residing at M.P. Khan, M.P. Police, Pachripara, Durg (C.G.)

2. Industrial Court, Raipur (C.G.)

3. Labour Court, Durg (C.G.)

---- Respondents

For Petitioner:

Mr. Abhishek Sinha and Mr. Ghanshyam

Patel, Advocates.

For Respondent No.1:

Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

17/11/2016

1. The respondent employee was appointed by the erstwhile M.P.

Electricity Board on the post of Driver on daily wage basis. He

remained absent from 15-8-1994 to 16-9-1994 and pursuant

thereto, charge-sheet was issued to him on 5-10-1994 and

departmental enquiry was instituted against him for

unauthorised absence, disobeying the order of superior officer

and suppression of material fact that prior to joining the

services of M.P. Electricity Board, he was working with the

Irrigation Department. Upon conclusion of enquiry, he was

terminated by the erstwhile M.P. Electricity Board on 19-8-

1995.

W.P.No.2029/2005

Page 2 of 9

2. The respondent employee preferred an application under

Section 31(3) read with Sections 61 and 107-A of the M.P.

Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court stating

inter alia that he is regular employee of the Board and his

services have been illegally terminated by the Board. The

Labour Court by its order dated 12-7-2000 while holding that

domestic enquiry has been conducted fairly and it is valid

interfered with the quantum of punishment and reinstated him in

service with 50% back wages. Being aggrieved against the

order of reinstatement and award of 50% back wages, the

petitioner herein preferred appeal before the Industrial Court.

By the impugned order, the Industrial Court partly set aside the

order of the Labour Court granting back wages to the

respondent employee, however, maintained the order of

reinstatement granted by the Labour Court. The petitioner

CSPDCL has now preferred this petition questioning the order

of the Labour Court duly affirmed by the Industrial Court to the

extent of reinstating the petitioner by interfering with the order

of termination so passed against the respondent herein.

3. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, would submit that the Labour Court having held that

domestic enquiry has properly and validly been conducted

consequent to which the respondent employee has been

punished, legally erred in interfering with the quantum of

punishment, as the punishment awarded is not shockingly

disproportionate to the misconduct which has been proved

against the respondent employee. He would rely upon the

W.P.No.2029/2005

Page 3 of 9

order of the M.P. High Court in the matter of Devkinandan

Tiwari v. State Industrial Court,

Madhya Pradesh and

others¹ and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of

M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma².

4. Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.1, would submit that even if domestic enquiry is held to be

valid and proper, the Labour Court is empowered to interfere

with the quantum of punishment as in this case the allegation

against the respondent employee is only that he remained

absent from 15-8-1994 to 16-9-1994 and there are some other

charges which are said to have been proved and are not such,

which warrant imposition of punishment of termination;

therefore, punishment of termination from service is highly

disproportionate and it has rightly been interfered with by the

Labour Court and rightly confirmed by the I