The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation and Manager Chhattisgarh Adhosanrachna Vikas Nigam vs Bansh Bahadur Singh and Others, Smt Gangabai and Others and Ramkumar Sahu and Another

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Since common facts and question of law are involved in the above petitions, thus, they are being disposed of by this common order. These petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 21.07.2004 [in WP (L) No. 1431/2007] passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur, the order dated 24.03.2005 [in W.P. (L) No. 2468/2007] passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur, and the orders dated 07.01.2008, passed by the Labour Court, Raipur and the order dated 13.04.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur [in W.P. (227) No. 5638/2009].

The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1, namely Bansh Bahadur Singh and Ramkumar Sahu, [in W.P. (L) No. 1431/2007 and W.P. (227) No. 5638/2009, respectively] and Mohan Singh Rajput, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. and 2 to 9 [in W.P. (L) No. 2468/2007) were working as conductor with the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ''the MPSRTC''). Bansh Bahadur Singh, Ramkumar Sahu and Mohan Singh Rajput were found carrying passengers without ticket. In the departmental enquiry, the charges of misconduct were found proved against them, and accordingly, their services were terminated. By notification dated 27.12.2002, the MPSRTC was dissolved on 31.12.2002 and the entire assets and liability of the said Corporation was divided on ''as is where is'' basis. The head office staff was to be shared by ratio of 18:82 between Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. The private respondents were working in Bilaspur and Raipur, respectively, before termination and as such, the liability and assets in respect of them were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. Being aggrieved by the order of their termination, the private respondents filed a case under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court, Bilaspur and the Labour Court, Raipur respectively. The learned Labour Court, after having considered all the aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-Corporation has failed to prove the misconduct against the private respondents, after holding the departmental enquiry as illegal, by order dated 21.1.1995, 02.04.1996 and 07.01.2008, respectively, directed reinstatement of the private respondents, in service. In W.P. (L) No. 1431/2007 and W.P. (L) No. 2468/2007, the Labour Court, Bilaspur, directed reinstatement in service with full back wages and in W.P. (227) No. 5638/2009, the Labour Court, Raipur directed reinstatement in service without any back wages. Against the said orders passed by the respective Labour Courts, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner-Corporation, before the Industrial Court, Raipur. In W.P. (L) No. 1431/2007 and W.P. (L) No. 2468/2007, the Industrial Court affirmed the order passed by the Labour Court. However, in W.P. (L) No. 2468/2007, since the private respondent-Mohan Singh Rajput died during pendency of the appeal, the relief of reinstatement in service could not be granted but the order of grant of full backwages was affirmed. In W.P. (227) No. 5638/2009, the Industrial Court, modified the order of the Labour Court, and granted the respondent-Ram Kumar Sahu 50% of backwages, on the ground that the petitioner-Corporation has failed to establish that the private respondent was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of their absence.

Shri Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order of reinstatement and grant of backwages is not at all justified as the private respondents were found guilty of misconduct in a departmental enquiry initiated against them wherein proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the private respondents.

On the other hand, Shri Kale and Shri Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would submit that the order passed by the learned Industrial Court, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.

On perusal of the documents produced before this Court, I do not find any irregularity or judicial impropriety, in conclusion and the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the departmental enquiry held against the private respondents was illegal.

In case of respondent Bansh Bahadur Singh in WP (L) No. 1431 of 2007 and Smt. Gangabai in WP (L) No. 2468 of 2007, the Labour Court has granted consequential relief of full backwages. The Courts below have not considered that full backwages even after reinstatement cannot be granted, as a consequential relief. The other factors like absence from service, employment gainfully, etc. have to be considered. All the cases were of similar nature, however, in the above stated cases full backwages were granted, which has been confirmed by the Industrial Court. Thus, grant of full backwages is modified to the extent of 50% backwages, as granted in case of Ramkumar Sahu respondent No. 1 in WP (227) No. 5638 of 2009.

In case of Ramkumar Sahu 50% back wages was granted, since the allegation of carrying passengers without ticket, have not been found proved and also the petitioner-Corporation has failed to establish that the private respondents were gainfully employed elsewhere during the period they were out of service, there is no reason to interfere with the findings in respect of grant of 50% backwages, recorded by the Industrial Court.

The jurisdiction of this Court in a writ petition filed against the order passed by the Labour Court or the Industrial Court, is limited to the extent of examining the procedural irregularity or judicial impropriety, and not the facts of the case unless the same is perverse. The petitioner-Corporation has failed to establish that there was any illegality, irregularity or procedural deficiency in the orders passed by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court.

The private respondents have brought to the notice of this Court, a circular dated 17.01.2006 issued by the Managing Director, of the petitioner-Corporation to all the Divisional Mangers wherein it is provided that in respect of backwages, the cases may be settled. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submit that in these cases, the grant of backwages may be settled as per circular dated 17.01.2006.

In view of the above submission, the grant of backwages may be settled as per the circular dated 17.01.2006, as pleaded by learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.