1 2025:CGHC:56203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 53 of 2017 Durg Travels Pvt. Ltd. In Front Of Bus Stand, G. E. Road, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh Through Ex Managing Director, Jitendra Nahar, S/o Shri Nemi Chand Nahar, Aged About 47 Years. , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus President, Chhattisgarh Parivahan Karmchari Union Behind Hanuman Mandir, Gondpara, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Surana, Adv appears through VC For Respondent : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Adv on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Adv. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 18/11/2025 1. The challenge in this writ petition is against an award dated 23.09.2016 (Annexure P- 1) passed by the Labour Court, Durg constituted under the Industrial Dispute Act in Case No.01/ID Act/ 2009/ Reference, by which the respondent was reinstated in service with the petitioner/ Institution with 25% back wages. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a statement of claim was filed by the Union of the respondent, inter alia, pleading that Ishwarlal Sahu was working as a bus driver with the petitioner/ Institution from 24.08.1999. The petitioner/ Institution vide its order dated 31.03.2008, terminated the services of Ishwarlal Sahu. The 2 further claim of the respondent was that the petitioner/ Institution was suddenly closed on 01.04.2008 and the employees working with it, was retrenched in which the name of Ishwarlal Sahu was not there he was not allowed to enter into the premises of the petitioner, he was a regular employee of the petitioner, no departmental enquiry was conducted against him, no proper opportunity to defend himself was offered and no charge-sheet was issued. The complaint was made by Ishwarlal Sahu to the Union i.e. the respondent and a reference was made to the Deputy labour Commissioner with respect to illegal termination of the service when the conciliation was failed, the reference was sent to the Labour Court. On the above broad pleadings, the claim statement was filed. The petitioner was a respondent before the learned Labour Court and vide its written statement admitted that Ishwarlal Sahu was a regular workman and a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against him. During the course of departmental enquiry, Ishwarlal Sahu was absent and therefore, an ex-parte departmental enquiry was carried out, misconduct was proved against Ishwarlal Sahu and he remained in unauthorized absent from 02.01.2008 without any application to that effect, a charge-sheet was sent to him through registered post which was return unserved as Ishwarlal Sahu did not resume his duties, therefore, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him and report was also submitted as the misconduct was proved against him, his services were terminated. He further submits that after a due departmental enquiry, the services of Ishwarlal Sahu was terminated. No defence was put forth by the respondent and the departmental enquiry was conducted in due course of time in accordance with law. Ishwarlal Sahu remained in absent for a considerable period of time without any sanctioned leave and it amounts misconduct which has been duly proved in the departmental enquiry. The learned Labour Court committed an error of law in holding that an ex-parte proceeding was carried out against Ishwarlal Sahu which vitiates the departmental enquiry resulting into the reinstatement of Ishwarlal Sahu, therefore, the impugned award passed by learned Labour Court may be set aside by allowing this writ petition. 3 3. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Labour Court has framed three issues and all the issues were decided in favour of the respondent. Admittedly, the copies of the charge-sheet were never served upon the delinquent employee i.e. Ishwarlal Sahu and a categorical finding has been recorded by the learned Labour Court. No notice was served to Ishwarlal sahu to appear in the departmental enquiry. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From perusal of record, it appears that the member of Union/ respondent Ishwarlal Sahu was employed by the petitioner. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner itself. It is also undisputed that from 24.08.1999 to 31.03.2008, he was in regular employment. Though it is alleged that Ishwarlal Sahu remained absent and that a notice was issued to him, it is not proved on record that the notice was served. Apart from this, the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner also does not disclose whether the charge-sheet issued against him was also served. The learned Labour Court on the basis of above broad pleadings, framed the issues. Issue No. 1 whether the retrenchment of Ishwarlal Sahu from service is illegal and unjustified. Consequently, issue No.1 was decided in the affirmative and issue No.2 was decided in negative. After assessing the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court in Paragraph 11 of the award, gave the following finding:- “ ैሰने उभय पኘ᭎ के विቛኋने अधिक्ताओं के ताके पर विचार विकेय। अभिभलेख के अलेकेने विकेय । उभय पኘ᭎ के ओर से ्ቚस्ता$ता सेኘ᭎%य के केथने के अलेकेने विकेय । विቛኋता%य पኘ᭎ सेኘ᭎% अधिक्ता ቦኍ% जे प% र ने केथने विकेय है* विके जे+चा अधिकेर% थ । विभगी%य जे+चा अधिकेर% के है*सिसेयता से उन्हैने आरप% केैሰचार% आदके ई्ቫरलेले सेहू के विभगी%य जे+चा ैሰ4 उपቝኌ6ता हैने के सिलेए केई भ% से8चाने नेहै9 दिदय है*। आरप% केैሰचार% ई्ቫरलेले सेहू उनेके सेैሰኘ᭎ उपቝኌ6ता नेहै9 हुआ थ । विቛኋता%य पኘ᭎ सेኘ᭎% जिजेतान््ቖ नेहैर ने केथने विकेय है* विके उन्हैने आदके ई्ቫरलेले सेहू के आरप प्ቔ दिदय थ ताथ विभगी%य जे+चा ैሰ4 उपቝኌ6ता हैने के सिलेए से8चाने दिदय थ । उसेसे से+बं+धिता केई भ% दस्ताजे न्ययलेय ैሰ4 ्ቚस्ता$ता नेहै9 है* । विቛኋता%य पኘ᭎ सेኘ᭎% जिजेतान््ቖ नेहैर ने केथने विकेय है* विके आदके ई्ቫरलेले सेहू के रजिजेस्ट्ቑ सिलेफाफा भजे गीय थ, जे विके पसे नेहै9 आय है*। आदके ई्ቫर लेले 4 सेहू ने केथने विकेय है* विके उन्है4 केई भ% से8चाने नेहै9 धिैሰले है*। विभगी%य जे+चा ैሰ4 उसे नेहै9 बं$लेय गीय थ। बंचा के केई भ% ैሰCके नेहै9 दिदय गीय है*। इसे तारहै उक्ता सेभिኘ᭎य के केथने से यहै बंता ्ቚैሰभिEता हैता है* विके आदके ई्ቫर लेले सेहू के विभगी%य जे+चा के से8चाने नेहै9 थ% । उसेके से सेैሰ቎ኌGता के भ% से8चाने नेहै9 थ%। विभगी%य जे+चा के केयहै% अ न्यधियके केयहै% है*। विभगी%य जे+चा अधिकेर% के केता्ቤ है% नेहै9 उनेके सिलेए आश्यके है* विके आरप% केैሰचार% के विधिता रूप से से8चाने द4 ताथ बंचा के ैሰCके द । आदके ई्ቫर लेले सेहू के विቛኋता%य पኘ᭎ ने बंचा के केई भ% ैሰCके नेहै9 दिदय है* और ने है% जे+चा अधिकेर% ने केई भ% ैሰCके दिदय है*। ऐसे% ቝኌ6विता ैሰ4 विभगी%य जे+चा के केयहै% ए+ से सेैሰ቎ኌGता के केयहै% अ* ए+ अने$सिचाता है*। अताM द्ቚ्቞ ्ቅैሰ+के 1 के विनेरकेरE "है+" ैሰ4 ताथ द्ቚ्቞ ्ቅैሰ+के 2 के विनेरकेरE "नेहै9" ैሰ4 विनेरकेP ता विकेय जेता है* । 6. The finding recorded by the Labour Court appears to be based on a proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Due assessment has been given by learned Labour Court on the evidence placed before it. Therefore, the finding so recorded does not appear to be perverse or contrary to record. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.11.20 10:41:26 +0530