2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(L) No. 141 of 2017 1 - General Manager, Steel Authority Of India Limited Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Deput Manager Personal-B. B. M./ M.S.G. Bhilai, Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durgchhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners Versus Lalit Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Laman Singh Chandrakar Ex- Technician, Electrical Maintenance Department, Blooming And Billet Mill, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, R/o House No. 44- D, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Respondent For Petitioners : Shri Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 20/02/2026 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition is filed against the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Chhattisgarh State Industrial Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 14/CGIR Act/A/11/2016 and Civil Appeal No. 15/CGIR Act/A/11/2016 whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal has dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 14/CGIR Act/A/11/2016 filed by the petitioner and allowed the another Civil Appeal No. 15/CGIR Act/A/11/2016 filed by the respondent / employee. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.03.03 17:50:50 +0530 -2- 3. Fact of the case:- Respondent was working as Technician-cum-Operative Trainee with petitioner and was terminated from service after Departmental Inquiry on account of unauthorized absence for a period of 215 days. The order terminating the services of the petitioner was passed on 06.03.2010. The said order was challenged by the respondent under section 31 (3) r/w section 61 and 62 C.G. Industrial Relation Act, 1960 (for short ‘IR Act’) before the learned Labour Court, Durg (C.G.) which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 60/CGIR Act/2010 (Annexure P-4). The learned Labour Court vide its order dated 01.05.2013, however, held Departmental Inquiry as illegal. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Industrial Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) which was registered as Mis. Civil No. 08/CGIR Act/III/2013. The order dated 01.05.2013 passed by the learned Labour Tribunal was set aside by the State Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 08.10.2013 and remanded the matter to the learned Labour Court to decide the case on merits on quantum of punishment. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court vide its order dated 04.02.2014 decided the case on merit and considered that the respondent is a habitual absentee and thus not entitled for any relief, and dismissed the case of the respondent. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the State Industrial Tribunal, Raipur which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 02/CGIR Act/A/11/2014 and vide its order dated 18.11.2014, the case was remanded back to the learned Labour Court on deciding on quantum of punishment. It was also observed by the learned Industrial Court that after the order is passed by the Labour Court, the parties can prefer an appeal in accordance with Law. Thus, the matter was remanded again to learned Labour Court and vide order dated 17.06.2016, the learned Labour Court partly allowed the application of the respondent under Section 31(3) r/w. Section 61 & 61 of the IR Act and set aside the order of termination and directed the petitioner to reinstate the -3- respondent within a period of 60 days to his earlier posting without any back- wages and monetary benefit. It is also been observed that two yearly increments for five years without cumulative effect be withheld by the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner as well as respondent in an appeal before the State Industrial Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.). The appeal filed by the petitioner was registered as Civil Appeal No. 14/CGIR Act/A/11/2016 and appeal filed by the respondent was registered as Civil Appeal No. 15/CGIR Act/A/11/2016. By the order impugned, the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and punishment of with-holding 02 annual increments for five years without cumulative effect was set aside. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. This led to filing of this writ petition challenging both the orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner was that he remained unauthorizly for 215 days absent without sanction. The inquiry was held against the respondent. Initially he was found guilty, and punishment of termination of service was imposed. The learned Labour Court initially held the Departmental inquiry to be illegal but the same was set aside by the learned Industrial Court and the matter was remanded twice for taking decision only on the quantum of punishment. Learned Labour Court committed an error while reducing the punishment to withholding of two increments only to five years without cumulative effect. He submits that the Departmental Inquiry conducted against the respondent was found to be legal by the Industrial Court, the meagre punishment of only with-holding increments that too without cumulative effect for five years is on lower side. Apart from this, he submits that learned Industrial Tribunal in the earlier proceedings while remanding the case, held that the learned Labour Court is required to pass an order of quantum of punishment, but still the in appeal filed by the respondent itself has set aside the order of meagre -4- punishment imposed by the learned Labour Court. The Orders passed in both the appeals are required to be set aside and termination from service is require to be maintained. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the Departmental Inquiry conducted against the respondent was held to be legal by the Industrial Court, however, the matter was remanded back to Labour Court for taking a decision on the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner. She further submits that while ascertaining the reason for the absence of the respondent, the learned Labour Court has categorically held that the respondent had sufficient reasons for his absence and this aspect of matter has not been looked into by the Inquiry Officer. The 99 days of unauthorized absence has found by the Inquiry Officer was explicitly explained by the petitioner that he was under the weather during that period and as a result could not attend his duty and thus leave ought to have been sanctioned by the petitioner. Though, the imposition of punishment of termination from service was set aside by the petitioner without any back wages and punishment of withholding two annual increment without cumulative effect for five years appears to be exaggerated looking to the alleged misconduct. The Industrial Tribunal was inflicted has rightly appreciated this aspect of matter and held that as the respondent was able to show that there was a willful and deliberate absence of the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer, relying upon the judgment of Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 178 rightly set aside the punishment. Thus there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record appended with the documents in the writ petition. -5- 6. This case has a chequered history. The allegation against the respondent is that he remained unauthorizly absent for a period more than 200 days. And was inflicted with punishment of termination from service, that order was subjected to challenge by the respondent before the Labour Court. The Departmental Inquiry conducted against the petitioner was found to be illegal by the Labour Court in its earlier order which was subjected to challenge by the petitioner before the learned Industrial Court and the State Industrial Tribunal successfully and the Departmental Inquiry conducted against the respondent was found to be legal and the matter was remanded only for the purposes of deciding the quantum of punishment. When the first remand was made by the learned State Industrial Tribunal, instead of passing an order with regard to quantum of punishment / altering the punishment, the learned Labour Court dismissed the entire statement of the claim filed by the respondent, which led to filing of another appeal before the learned State Industrial Tribunal by the respondent and the same was allowed and the matter was remanded again. While deciding the case in the second remand, the imposition of penalty of termination from service was set aside by the learned Labour Court, however, the said penalty was altered to withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect for five years. This led to filing of these two appeals, one by the petitioner and one by the respondent. The learned Industrial Court by the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner while allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. Now the fourth question is that this Court has to see whether the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner by the learned State Industrial Tribunal requires such interference by this Court. As stated above, the fact reflects that the Departmental Inquiry was held to be legal by the Industrial Court and only option which was left over to the learned Labour Court is to decide the quantum of compensation. If the petitioner was aggrieved by that order of that -6- remand, could have challenge the same that the remand was bad in law permitting the Labour Court to take the decision on the quantum of punishment. In the case in hand, the petitioner appears to have failed to do so. Now the petitioner cannot claim that the dismissal of service of the respondent should be maintained. Once that issue has already been set at rest by the Industrial Court while remanding the case twice. In view of the matter, the writ petition so far as challenging the portion of dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner does not have any force and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Now the question which is left for determination as to whether the finding recorded by the learned State Industrial Tribunal with regard to setting aside the imposition of altered punishment i.e. withholding two annual increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect requires to be interfered by this Court or not. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that the Departmental Inquiry was found to be legal by the learned Industrial Court and that finding is not been assailed by any of the parties before any of the higher forum. The learned Industrial Court entered into the merits of the Departmental Inquiry holding that the Inquiry Officer has not given a finding that the absence of the respondent was willful and deliberate and thus relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar (Supra). However, the fact remains that once the competent Court has approved the Departmental Inquiry, any finding contrary to that could not have been made by the learned Industrial Court. 8. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Industrial Court exceeded his jurisdiction in altering the sentence which has been awarded by the learned Labour Court in the order which was challenged by both the petitioner and the respondent. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the absence of only 99 days was found to be proved against the respondent by the Inquiry -7- Officer as is reflected from the orders which are part of the record. The learned Labour Court appears to have given a harash punishment of withholding five increments without cumulative effect of five years. In the opinion of this Court it requires interference, in this writ petition. So far as setting aside the punishment imposed by the Industrial Court is concerned, this Court finds some force in the submission of Shri Agrawal, Advocate. Thus, the impugned order deserves some modification by this Court. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, in compliance of the orders of the learned Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Court, the petitioner has been reinstated and still continuing in service. Taking into consideration the cumulative assessment of material available on record, the punishment of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect for five years is hereby set aside and instead of that the respondent is imposed with penalty of withholding of one annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect that would make the punishment just and equitable looking to the misconduct. 9. Thus, this writ petition in this effect is partly allowed and consequence to follow as indicated above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish