1 2026:CGHC:6658 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 4742 of 2011 Order Reserved on 04.11.2025 Order Pronounced on 05.02.2026 Order Uploaded on 05.02.2026 Kudumulla Yahosua S/o Late Yesudass, Resident of Qtr. No. 6/6, Street-28, Av. B. VII, Bhilai Nagar (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Girja Shankar Singh and Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV Order 1. By way of filing of present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 07.08.2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (for short ‘Industrial Court’) in Civil Appeal No. 56/CGIR ACT/A-11/2007 (Annexure P-1) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 29.05.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Durg (for short ‘Labour Court’) in Case No. 4/CGIR Act.Civil/2006 (Annexure P-2) was affirmed. 2 2. The facts as reflected from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Plant Attendant (S-1 Grade) in Bhilai Steel Plant vide appointment order dated 01.11.1999 and was allotted Personnel No. 942277 and Token No. 36319. It is pleaded that the petitioner’s mother owing to her old age was suffering from chronic ailments including Asthma and Arthritis requiring constant medical treatment and care. On account of the said compelling family circumstances, the petitioner could not attend duties regularly though he consistently informed the department whenever leave was required. It is further pleaded that the petitioner himself suffered from Hepatitis and was hospitalized, and was declared medically unfit for the period 02.01.2004 to 31.01.2004. A charge-sheet dated 23.08.2004 (Annexure P-3) alleging misconduct of habitual absence without leave was issued. The petitioner submitted his explanation. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no fair or proper departmental enquiry was conducted. He was summoned by the Enquiry Officer on 22.09.2004 and was allegedly prevailed upon to admit the charges with an assurance that a lenient view would be taken. Under such pressure, the petitioner admitted the charges pursuant to which the enquiry report (Annexure P-4) was submitted. Consequently, the petitioner’s services were terminated vide order dated 18.03.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an application before the Labour Court, Durg under Section 31(3)/61 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 which came to be rejected without recording adequate reasons. The appeal preferred before the Industrial Court, Raipur also met the same fate vide impugned order dated 07.08.2007. Hence this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet was not issued within the prescribed period of one year and is thus unauthorized. It is further contended that the charge-sheet was not issued in accordance with the Standing Orders (Plant). No finding has been recorded in the departmental enquiry that the petitioner’s absence was willful or intentional which is a sine qua non for sustaining the charge of 3 unauthorized absence. It is submitted that both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court erred in holding that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the termination was legal and justified. He further submits that the charge-sheet dated 23.08.2004 issued to the petitioner is wholly unauthorized as the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 (for short Rules of 1963) are applicable. Under the said Rules, the issuance of a minimum of three charge-sheets within a year constitutes minor misconduct as prescribed under Rule 12(थ) of the Rules of 1963. He submits that issuance of further charge-sheets would fall within the category of major misconduct attracting major penalties. He further contends that the charge-sheets which were required to be issued within a year have in fact been issued by the respondent over a span of five years. He submits that the respondent has failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the said Rules. Therefore he submits that the charge-sheet so issued is unauthorized and the termination of the petitioner is wholly illegal. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IC-56663X Col. Anil Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1534, State of Punjab vs. Dr. P. L. Singla reported in (2008) 8 SCC 469, Kishore Jaikishandas Icchaporia Vs. M. R. Bhope (Presiding Officer, Labour Court) and others reported in 1987 SCC Online Bom 477. He prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated with the back wages. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is referring the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rule, 1963 is not applicable in the present case because it is a Central Government Organization and governed under the Rule of The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short Act of 1946) and the Rules made thereunder is application in this case. The writ petition suffers from delay of approximately four years and deserves dismissal on the ground of delay and laches alone. He submits It is contended that the departmental 4 enquiry clearly establishes that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and had earlier been subjected to minor and major penalties. Considering his past conduct, the punishment of termination is stated to be justified. It is further submitted that the petitioner admitted his guilt during the enquiry and cannot now contend that such admission was obtained under coercion, particularly when no such plea was raised before the Labour Court or the Industrial Court. It is contended that the procedure prescribed under Clause 31(ii)(a) of the Standing Orders (Plant) was strictly followed and that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction,ought not to act as an appellate authority unless the enquiry is shown to be vitiated by illegality or violation of principles of natural justice. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs. T. T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 and Chairman & Managing Director, V.S. P. and others Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu reported in (2008) 5 SCC 569. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and has perused the record with utmost care. 6. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on records it appears that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and had a chequered service record. The departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the law and Standing Orders (Plant). The principles of natural justice were duly complied with and the charge sheet along with relevant documents have been supplied to the petitioner and adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. 7. The contention that the admission of guilt was obtained under coercion is not supported by any material on record and appears to be an afterthought. It is an admitted position that no such plea was raised either before the Labour Court or the Industrial Court. In the absence of any contemporaneous protest, complaint, or 5 evidence to substantiate the allegation of coercion, the petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw from his voluntary admission at this stage. It appears from the records on earlier occasions also the petitioner has absent from the duties without taking leave and for that he has also given punishment, it shows that he is habitual absentee. The record further reveals that before terminating the services of the petitioner, he was granted multiple opportunities by the authorities on the following occasions: (i) For the period from January 2000 to December 2000, the delinquent employee remained unauthorisedly absent for 75 days. Consequently, his pay was reduced by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect, with effect from 18.10.2001. (ii) For the period from January 2001 to January 2002, he remained unauthorisedly absent for 110 days. As a result, his pay was reduced to the minimum stage (S-1) for a period of two years with cumulative effect, with effect from 06.08.2002. (iii) For the period from January 2002 to January 2003, he remained unauthorisedly absent for 193 days. Accordingly, his basic pay was reduced for a period of four years with cumulative effect, with effect from 14.07.2003. Having regard to his habitual absenteeism, the action of the disciplinary authority against the petitioner which cannot be said to be disproportionate or arbitrary. 8. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rules of 1963 are applicable to the present case is devoid of merit, as the respondent organization is a Central Government organization. Consequently, the Act of 1946 is applicable. Therefore, the contention so advanced does not hold water and is accordingly rejected. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet was issued beyond the prescribed period or was not in conformity with the Standing Orders has also not been effectively raised by the petitioner in both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. The findings recorded by the labour Court & Industrial Court are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and do not warrant any interference by this Court. Even otherwise, it is noticed that the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate delay of approximately four 6 years from the date of the order passed by the Industrial Court. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Supra) paragraph No. 23 has observed as under: “23.We have quoted in extenso as we are disposed to think that the Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar case has, while dealing with the charge of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant. expressed the aforestated view and further the learned Judges have also opined that there may be compelling circumstances which are beyond the control of an employee. That apart, the facts in the said case were different as the appellant on certain occasions was prevented to sign the attendance register and the absence was intermittent. Quite apart from that, it has been stated therein that it is obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to come to a conclusion that the absence is wilful. On an apposite understanding of the judgment Krushnakant B. Parmar casell we are of the opinion that the view expressed in the said case has to be restricted to the facts of the said case regard being had to the rule position, the nature of the charge levelled against the employee and the material that had come on record during the enquiry. It cannot be stated as an absolute proposition in law that whenever there is a long unauthorised absence, it is obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to record a finding that the said absence is wilful even if the employee fails to show the compelling circumstances to remain absent.” [Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 178] 10. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Col. Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) is misplaced as the said judgment was rendered in the peculiar facts of that case does not advance the petitioner’s case particularly when habitual absence and prior misconduct stand duly established in the present matter. 7 11. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence or to substitute its own conclusions for those of the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Court as well as Labour Court, unless the findings are shown to be perverse or vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, no such ground is made out in the present case. 12. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The orders dated 29.05.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Durg and 07.08.2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur are hereby affirmed. The writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H. Ansari HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.02.05 17:57:19 +0530