AGIO PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the orders dtd. 12/10/2006 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Industrial Court in Civil Appeal No.25/CGIR Act/A-II/2006, Kanoi Paper and Industries Limited Vs. Punjab N. Ukale, order dtd. 7/3/2006 (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 and Industries Limited and order dtd. 6/4/2004 (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 Sec. 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 6/4/1995, therefore, he sent a medical certificate (Annexure P/4A) on 10/4/1995 which has been received by the Petitioner. After recovering from his illness, he reported for duty on 5/8/1995. The Petitioner issued charge-sheet dtd. 26/7/1995 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 Sec. 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 8/4/1995 regarding his illness nor any medical certificate has been received by the Petitioner herein on 10/4/1995. On 26/7/1995, the Petitioner herein issued a charge-sheet (Annexure P/5) levelling charges, which remained unserved. When the Respondent No.3 appeared before the Petitioner herein on 4/8/1995, the charge-sheet was served. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 submitted his explanation on 7/8/1995, which was not satisfactory and Departmental Enquiry was initiated. On 30/12/1995 and 3/1/1996, 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 1/1/1996. 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 2/3/1996. The Enquiry Officer, in compliance of principles of natural justice, has again sent a notice for his appearance on 2/4/1996 and it was also published in the Nav Bharat on 6/4/1996 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 28/6/1996 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 dtd. 6/4/2004 (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 its order dtd. 7/3/2006 (Annexure P/2), reinstated the Respondent No.3 with 50% back wages. Thereafter, the Petitioner challenged this order before the learned Industrial Court of Chhattisgarh at Raipur in appeal which was registered as Appeal No. C.A. No.25/CGIR Act/A-II/2006, which was also rejected by Industrial Court vide order dtd. 12/10/2006 (Annexure P/1) without considering the submission and again relying on the documents which were not exhibited after vitiation of the department enquiry. Hence, this petition by the Petitioner seeking following relief(s) :-