1 2025:CGHC:16447 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 291 of 2014 1 - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board And Anr. Aged About 18 Years Now Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd, Korba East Through Its Superintendent Engineer Generation-Ii Korba East, Korba C.S.E.B. Distt Korba, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Now Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd, Through Its Chief Engineer, Korba, Dist Korba, Cg, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hridayram Sahu S/o Dularu Ram Sahu R/o S.E.590/c.S.E.B. Colony, Korba East Distt Korba, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Industrial Court, Bench At Bilaspur, Dist Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur, Dist Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioner : Ms. Khushboo Dua, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Mr. Harsh Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.04.2025 1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Industrial Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Appeal No.02/CGIR/Act/2012 REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- dated 27.08.2014 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the present case are that respondent No.1 was working with the petitioners/employers as a Helper since 01.05.1982. The petitioners/employers issued an article of charge as respondent No.1 had secured the employment on the basis of a forged mark-sheet of Class 8th. An inquiry was conducted. In the said inquiry, respondent No.1 was directed to produce the mark- sheet of Class-8th or to submit an explanation for verification, but he failed to do so. The charges level against respondent No.1 were found proved. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.10.2006, the services of respondent No.1 were terminated. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 31(3) of the C.G.I.R. Act before the learned Labour Court challenging the order dated 11.10.2006, which was allowed directing the petitioners/employers to reinstate respondent No.1 in service vide order dated 04.02.2012. Thereafter, the petitioners/employers preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court which was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been preferred. 3. Ms. Dua, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.1 secured the employment to the post of Helper in the department of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board on 01.05.1982 by submitting a forged mark-sheet of Class 8th. She would further submit that the Superintendent Engineer conducted an inquiry and found the mark-sheet forged as there was 3 overwriting. She would contend that the witnesses of the department enquiry proved the charges against respondent No.1. She would further contend that the learned Labour Court and the learned Appellate Court committed an error of law in passing the order of reinstatement without back wages in favor of respondent No. 1. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would oppose. He would submit that the mark- sheet of Class 8th was submitted by respondent No.1 at the time of the appointment and at that stage, it was not verified by the employer. He would further submit that the mark-sheet of respondent No.1 has been verified by the Superintendent Engineer of the department, who had no authority of the law to verify that document. He would contend that the mark-sheet ought to have been sent to the institute from where respondent No.1 had passed that examination or to the Divisional Board and the findings recorded by the Superintendent Engineer in this regard are of no value. He would also submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the mark-sheet on whose basis respondent No.1 secured employment has been alleged to be forged by the employer. Respondent No.1 was appointed on 01.05.1982 whereas an inquiry was initiated in the year 2003. Further, the Superintendent Engineer of the Department verified the mark- -4- sheet of respondent No.1 and held the document to be a forged one. The mark-sheet was not issued by the Superintendent Engineer or by the employer rather it was issued by the Divisional Board and it was countersigned by the Head Master of the Institute. The petitioners/employers ought to have sent the mark sheet for verification to the Divisional Board or the School. 7. It appears that no such steps were taken by the employer and further, there are concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha