1 CGHC010021782016 2026:CGHC:36525 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 131 of 2016 1 - The Managing Director/ Chief Executive Officer Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kamanna S/o Shri Jangdada, Aged About 54 Years Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order Quarter No. 03/ F, Street- 19, Zone- 1, Sector- 11, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Industrial Court, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate. For Respondent/s : Shri Shishir Dixit, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “(i) The impugned order dated 05.04.16 of the State Industrial Court, Raipur (Annexure: P-1) may kindly be set aside/quashed by issuing an appropriate Writ or Order and the order dated 09.06.2015 of the Labour Court may be restored. (ii) Any other relief as may seem just & proper to this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.” NIRMALA RAO 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.1 was given compassionate appointment to the post of Khalasi (NMR) on 9.12.1987. Subsequently, his services were regularized. An article of charge was issued to the petitioner on 13.12.2010, wherein an allegation was made to the effect that he had secured employment by impersonation. Respondent No.1 filed a reply to the charge memo. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed vide order dated 12.1.2011. The petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry and, after completion of the enquiry, a report was submitted before the disciplinary authority on 22.7.2011. The petitioner filed a reply to the enquiry report and was subsequently removed from service vide order dated 19.9.2011. Respondent No.1 challenged the said order by raising an industrial dispute before the learned Labour Court under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short, ‘CGIR Act’). The management filed its reply to the application, and thereafter, a preliminary issue with regard to the validity of the departmental enquiry was framed by the learned Labour Court. The parties led their evidence, and before a decision on the said issue, an application was moved by the workman for taking certain documents on record. The said application was allowed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 8.6.2015. Subsequently, the learned Labour Court decided the issue against the workman and in favour of the management. Respondent No.1 challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Industrial Court under Section 67 read with Section 64-A of the CGIR Act. The learned Appellate Court remitted the matter back on the ground that the documents filed by respondent No.1 had not been considered by the learned Labour Court and sufficient 3 opportunity had also not been afforded to him. The petitioner/employer has challenged the order dated 5.4.2016 passed by the learned Industrial Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.1 was afforded sufficient opportunity in the departmental enquiry. He would submit that the learned Labour Court considered the procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer and, on the basis of the undisputed proceedings on record, recorded a categorical finding that the departmental enquiry had been conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the relevant rules. He would submit that the allegation against respondent No.1 was based on the enquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, District Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, whereas the workman subsequently submitted documents such as an Aadhaar Card, Ration Card, Voter ID and Driving Licence to establish his identity. He would contend that although the learned Labour Court had allowed the said application, it ultimately decided the issue in favour of the employer. He would submit that there was no occasion for the Appellate Court to remit the matter back for affording an opportunity of hearing to the workman afresh. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ramchandra v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others, in W.A. No.175 of 2016, decided on 20.4.2016, wherein it was held that the learned Labour Court had committed a serious error in law by travelling beyond its jurisdiction and directing that further evidence be adduced, when evidence in support of the charge was indusputably already available on record and there was no procedural infirmity in the conduct of the 4 departmental proceedings. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the workman is presently 75 years of age and is bedridden. He would submit that before deciding the issue with regard to the validity of the departmental enquiry, the workman had moved an application for taking certain documents on record. He would submit that the documents submitted before the learned Labour Court go to the root of the case; therefore, the learned Labour Court ought to have considered those documents before deciding the said issue. He would submit that, as no opportunity was afforded to the workman and those documents were not taken into consideration, the learned Appellate Court rightly remitted the matter back for deciding the issue afresh. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. In the matter of Ramchandra (supra), there was a dispute with regard to the date of birth. It was held that interference in departmental proceedings is warranted if there are procedural flaws in the conduct thereof. If the Labour Court had found any procedural infirmity in the decision-making process, it was fully empowered to call upon the management to lead further evidence. The relevant paragraphs 8 and 9 are reproduced hereinbelow: “8. In a departmental proceedings, interference is called for only if there are procedural flows in conduct of the same. The jurisdiction lies if there is any error in the decision making process and not against the final decision. If the Labour Court would have found any procedural infirmity in 5 the decision making process, as opined by the Learned Single Judge it was fully empowered to call upon the management to lead further evidence. But, in the present case, the Labour Court held that departmental proceedings had been conducted in accordance with law. Once the communication sent to the Board of Secondary Education and the reply received was not questioned by the Appellant and neither did he offer any explanation with regard to the same, nothing further was required to be proved by the management. The findings in a departmental proceedings are based on preponderance of probabilities which require a minimum of evidence. If any reasonable evidence is available, the question of sufficiency of the same cannot be gone into. 9. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the finding of the Labour Court in the order dated 27.9.2010 was itself inherently contradictory especially in view of the recitals in the imputation of the misconduct that in his own statement before the Vigilance Department on 21.8.2009 the Appellant had accepted that his actual date of birth as per school record is 15.7.1948. The Labour Court therefore committed an error in proceeding to direct that the Principal of the School or the Officer of the Board of Secondary Education should have been examined. The authenticity of the certificate confirmed by the Secondary Board of Education was not in dispute. It was not even the case of the Appellant that he had applied for any correction of the date of birth. The Labour Court therefore committed serious error in law by travelling beyond its jurisdiction and directing further evidence to be taken when evidence in support of the charge was indisputably already available on record and there was no procedural infirmity in the conduct of the departmental proceedings.” 7. In the present case, the order of removal from service was passed against the workman on the ground that he had secured employment 6 by impersonation. The order of removal from service was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court. Prior to the decision on the preliminary issues, an application for taking certain documents on record was filed by the workman. As findings were recorded against the workman on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, District Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, and in order to counter the observations made in the said enquiry report, the workman placed certain documents on record. The learned Labour Court failed to consider those documents and decided the issue against the workman and in favour of the petitioner. The learned Industrial Court remitted the matter back with a direction to consider those documents and decide the issue after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In the matter of Ramchandra (supra), the facts were entirely different; therefore, the petitioner herein would not derive any benefit from the said judgment. 8. Having considered the fact that the documents placed on record by the workman were not considered by the learned Labour Court, the learned Industrial Court remitted the matter back with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. I do not find any good ground to interfere with such order. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Considering the age of the workman, the learned Labour Court is directed to decide the matter expeditiously. 9. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi