1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 41 of 2019 1 - The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Transport Section, Divisional Office, Bilaspur, Through Its Divisional Manager., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Maheshwar Soni S/o Laxmi Prasad Soni, Ex - Conductor (Korba Depot), R/o Village - Taga, Tehsil - Janjgir, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Industrial Court Of Chhattisgarh Bench At Bilaspur, Through Its Joint Registrar., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. N. Pusty, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P. L. None for respondent No.1 despite service. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order On Board 06/02/2026 1. In this writ petition challenge is to an order dated 15.02.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the State Industrial Court in Civil Appeal No.12/ CGIR Act/ A-II/ 2007 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 65 CGIR Act, 1965 against an order passed by learned Labour Court, Bilaspur in case No. 85/ CGIR Act/ 05 dated 10.04.2004, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 was working as a conductor in the erstwhile MPSRTC. His services were terminated on 29.11.1989 (Annexure P-1) by the said MPSRTC. This termination was challenged by respondent No.1 before the learned Labour Court arraying the petitioner as 2 respondent. Earlier, the learned Labour Court set aside the termination, which was then challenged by the petitioner before the Industrial Court and Industrial Court has remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the termination of the respondent No.1 was set aside and he was reinstated in service. However, no monetary benefit was granted to him except for continuity of service. The order dated 10.04.2006 passed by learned Labour Court was challenged before the Industrial Court with a delay of about 6 days. By the impugned order dated 15.02.2008, the learned Industrial Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on merits, as well as on the ground of being barred by limitation. Consequently, this writ petition has been filed. He further submits that the petitioner is not liable for any service benefits to respondent No.1. Although respondent No.1 was taken back into service and sent on deputation to another department, the fact remains that he was not an employee of petitioner. Thus, it is contended that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 despite service. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. From perusal of order dated 10.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the learned Labour Court after considering the submissions made by the parties and the material available on record came to a definite conclusion regarding the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner was illegal. On the second issue regarding misconduct of the respondent No.1, and the third issue regarding the severity of the punishment imposed upon, the learned Court decided in favour of respondent No.1. Consequently, after considering these aspects, the Court allowed the application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 31 (3) of CGIR Act. While no monetary benefits were granted, continuity of service was awarded in favour of respondent No.1. This order was subsequently subject to challenge before the learned Industrial Court. Perusal of order dated 15.02.2008 passed by learned Industrial Court indicates that, although learned Industrial Court did not find sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and held it liable for dismissal on that ground, 3 however also went on merits of the case and held that the burden of proving misconduct lies upon the employer. The learned Industrial Court further observed that despite being given sufficient opportunity in the Labour Court, the petitioner failed to prove the alleged misconduct. It was also held that the findings of the Labour Court were based upon the proper appreciation of facts and there is no irregularity or illegality. Thus, the appeal was also dismissed on its merits. Perusal of both orders clearly indicates that both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court arrived at a categorical finding of fact that the department enquiry conducted the petitioner was not proved by the petitioner. Consequently, the relief stated above was granted in favour of the respondent No.1. Upon due consideration, this Court is unable to find any material on record to give any different opinion in this regard. Therefore, as the findings are based on a proper appreciation of evidence and relevant facts available on record, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2026.02.11 10:50:14 +0530