SHIV CHARAN SAHU Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the Petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 15th April, 2004 (annexure P/1), passed by the Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, the order dated 5.7.96 (Annexure P/ 5), passed by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, dismissing the Petitioner as Plant Assistant Grade-II from the services with immediate effect and the order dated 10.5.04 (Annexure P/8), passed by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, dismissing the Petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 15th April, 2004, passed by the Industrial Court.

(2.) THE indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the Petitioner was employed as Plant Assistant Grade - II and was posted at Korba Power Plant. The Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 23.6.1995 (Annexure P/3), containing three charges alleging that the Petitioner, while performing his duties as an Assistant to the Store Keeper Grade - II in E&M Stores Korba West, had issued scrap conveyor belt to Birsinghpur without properly verifying the documents which was subsequently found to be fake and as such, the same caused loss of the property worth Rs. 15 Lakhs to the Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 11.7.1995 (Annexure P/4) and the enquiry was held by the order dated 5.7.96 (Annexure P/5). The Petitioner was dismissed from the services on the post of Plant Assistant Grade-II, holding that the departmental enquiry was proper and legal and the findings of misconduct was proved in the enquiry. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 121/M.P.I.R./97. The Labour Court, by its order dated 06.04.2002 (Annexure P/6), held as under:

(3.) SHRI Prafull Bharat, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the finding of the Industrial Court that the Labour Court committed grave irregularity in directing reinstatement is perverse. The Labour Court has examined the evidences and came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by the employer in the departmental proceedings does not establish the misconduct and it was the case of negligence. On the question of substitution of his own opinion, it was contended that the Labour Court was fully justified under the provisions of Section 107-A of the Act, 1960. The Labour Court can amend the order of imposition of penalty even after holding that the enquiry was proper in procedural aspect i.e. in respect of examination of the evidence, show-cause notice and conduct of the enquiry, not on the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. The Labour Court is fully empowered to re-appraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and come to a different finding.