ORDER : 1. By this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the orders dated 12.10.2006 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Industrial Court in Civil Appeal No.25/CGIR Act/A-II/2006, Kanoi Paper & Industries Limited Vs. Punjab N. Ukale, order dated 07.03.2006 (Annexure P/2) passed by the learned Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 272/MPIR/96 (wrongly typed as 277/MPIR/96) in case of Punjab N. Ukale Vs. Kanoi Paper & Industries Limited and order dated 06.04.2004 (Annexure P/3) passed in Case No. 272/MPIR/96. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the Petitioner, are that the Petitioner/Respondent No.3 herein had filed an application (Annexure P/4), which was registered as Case No.272/MPIR/96 under Section 31 (3) of MPIR Act before the Labour Court, Bilaspur, inter-alia pleading therein that he was working with Petitioner herein for last 12 years. He fell sick on 06.04.1995, therefore, he sent a medical certificate (Annexure P/4A) on 10.04.1995 which has been received by the Petitioner. After recovering from his illness, he reported for duty on 05.08.1995. The Petitioner issued charge-sheet dated 26.07.1995 and a departmental inquiry was conducted and after being found guilty, the Petitioner terminated his services on 14.10.1996. Further ground taken in the application is that the departmental inquiry and termination of service is illegal, the punishment imposed on the Applicant is dis-proportionate to the misconduct committed by him and, as such, liable to be interfered under Section 107 (a) of MPIR Act and prayed that he be reinstated with full back wages. 3. The Petitioner herein contested the case denying the allegation that the Respondent No.3 neither gave any information on 08.04.1995 regarding his illness nor any medical certificate has been received by the Petitioner herein on 10.04.1995. On 26.07.1995, the Petitioner herein issued a charge-sheet (Annexure P/5) levelling charges, which remained un-served. When the Respondent No.3 appeared before the Petitioner herein on 04.08.1995, the charge-sheet was served. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 submitted his explanation on 07.08.1995, which was not satisfactory and Departmental Enquiry was initiated. On 30.12.1995 and 03.01.1996, the Respondent No.3 appeared in the Departmental Enquiry but did not demand for any document or list of witnesses. The Respondent No.3 prayed for engagement of co-worker in the Departmental Enquiry and sought time, which was allowed and the proceeding was adjourned till 01.01.1996. The Respondent No.3 has not raised any objection regarding appointment of Enquiry Officer before the Enquiry Officer. The Respondent No.3 prayed for engagement of co-worker in the Departmental Enquiry and sought time, which was allowed and the proceeding was adjourned till 01.01.1996. The Respondent No.3 has not raised any objection regarding appointment of Enquiry Officer before the Enquiry Officer. The Respondent No.3 remained absent in the departmental enquiry despite the notice of hearing on 02.03.1996. The Enquiry Officer, in compliance of principles of natural justice, has again sent a notice for his appearance on 02.04.1996 and it was also published in the Nav Bharat on 06.04.1996 but the Respondent No.3 remained absent, as such, his right to defend was closed. Thereafter, the Petitioner sent a show cause notice and enquiry report on permanent and local address of Respondent No.3. That apart, the Petitioner also published show cause notice on 28.06.1996 in the daily Nav Bharat giving him 10 day’s time to reply the same, however, the Respondent No.3 had not submitted any reply and remained absent. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court, vide its order dated 06.04.2004 (Annexure P/3), vitiated the departmental enquiry on the count that Shri Pradeep Saxena who was the Enquiry Officer, junior of Shri H.N, Vyas, Advocate, who was the retainer counsel of the Company and along with charge-sheet, copy of the complaint has not been provided to the Respondent No.3 by the Petitioner. After vitiating departmental enquiry, the Petitioner examined Shri Sunil Mishra to prove the misconduct of the of the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 also examined himself before the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court ignoring the evidence and material on record, vide its order dated 07.03.2006 (Annexure P/2), reinstated the Respondent No.3 with 50% back wages. Thereafter, the Petitioner challenged this order before the learned Industrial Court of Chhattisgarh at Raipur in appeal which was registered as Appeal No. C.A. No.25/CGIR Act/A-II/2006, which was also rejected by Industrial Court vide order dated 12.10.2006 (Annexure P/1) without considering the submission and again relying on the documents which were not exhibited after vitiation of the department enquiry. Hence, this petition by the Petitioner seeking following relief(s) :- “7.1 That, the order dated 12.10.2006 passed by learned Industrial Court in Civil Appeal No. 25/CGIR Act/A-II/2006 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 07.03.2006 passed by learned Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 272/ MPIR/96 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 6/4/04 (Annexure P/3) be kindly quashed. Hence, this petition by the Petitioner seeking following relief(s) :- “7.1 That, the order dated 12.10.2006 passed by learned Industrial Court in Civil Appeal No. 25/CGIR Act/A-II/2006 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 07.03.2006 passed by learned Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 272/ MPIR/96 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 6/4/04 (Annexure P/3) be kindly quashed. 7.2 That the dismissal order dated 14.10.96 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Petitioner be kindly maintained. 7.3 That the records of the Lower Court be kindly commanded. 7.4 Any other relief deem fit by the Hon’ble Court be kindly granted.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that order passed by the learned Courts below are bad in law and facts, as such, illegal and liable to be quashed. The learned Courts below erred in relying upon Unfit Certificate (Ex.P-3) and fitness certificate dated 04.08.1995 (Annexure P/4-A) given by the Doctor, which exhibited at the time of validity of departmental enquiry, but the proceedings was vitiated by the learned Labour Court vide its order dated 06.04.2004, as such, this document could not be relied upon by the learned Courts below. Learned counsel further submits that the orders passed by the learned Courts below are against the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Neeta Kaplish Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour & Ors. reported in (1999) 2 LLJ 275. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Court below erred in relying on Fitness Certificate (Ex.P-4), whose genuineness has been questioned and even without examining the Doctor who has given the medical certificate. The order passed by the learned Labour Court and its affirmation by learned Industrial Court are against the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court. The learned Labour Court has erred in vitiating the departmental enquiry on this count that Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate, is junior of Shri H.N. Vyas, Advocate, who is retainer of the Company, without giving any finding that what prejudice has been caused to the Respondent No.3 by appointment of Shri Saxena as the Enquiry Officer. This order of the learned Court below is against the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in various cases. Therefore, both the orders of learned Courts below are liable to be set aside. 5. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. This order of the learned Court below is against the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in various cases. Therefore, both the orders of learned Courts below are liable to be set aside. 5. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh reported in 2005 STPL 11498 SC, Devalsab Husainsab Mulla Vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014 3 ALLMR 956 and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Lakshmidevamma & Anr. reported in (2001) AIR (SCW) 1981. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 strongly opposed the prayer of the Petitioner and submits that the Petitioner intents to challenge the concurrent finding recorded by the Industrial Court as well as by learned Labour Court invoking the extraordinary powers of this Hon’ble Court envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereas in the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to show what procedural error or illegality/jurisdiction, error of law, violation of principles of natural justice, arbitrary or capricious exercise of the authority, any perversity, any error on facts or law has been committed by the Industrial Court or Labour Court while deciding the dispute in respect of termination of the answering respondent. As such, in absence of any said procedural illegality or perversity, the Hon’ble Court should not interfere with the order passed by the learned Labour Court and Industrial Court. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Labour Court after appreciating the evidence of parties has come to conclusion that the Departmental Enquiry which had been initiated by the Department is illegal. The learned Labour Court, after deciding the preliminary issue in favour of the workman, had granted opportunity of hearing to the management to lead the evidence and prove the misconduct on merit. Accordingly, the management lead the evidence for proving the misconduct on merit but the management has failed to prove the misconduct as mentioned in the charge-sheet. Accordingly, vide order dated 06.03.2006, the learned Labour Court has come to conclusion that the management has failed to prove unauthorized absence of respondent No.3 from duty and directed the management to reinstate the Respondent with 50% back wages, as such, there is no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Court below. Accordingly, vide order dated 06.03.2006, the learned Labour Court has come to conclusion that the management has failed to prove unauthorized absence of respondent No.3 from duty and directed the management to reinstate the Respondent with 50% back wages, as such, there is no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Court below. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Industrial Court also after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned order. There is categorical finding recorded by the lower Court as well as Industrial Court. Thus, this petition being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Reliance is placed on the decision/order dated 22.05.2017 of this Court passed in W.P.(L) No.6815/2007 [Poshanlal Verma Vs. Chairman, State Industrial Court & Anr.]. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Apparently, it is not disputed in this case that the Respondent No.3 was served with charge-sheet and thereafter enquiry was conducted. The learned Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence and material led before it, passed the order in favour of Respondent No.3. Being aggrieved by the order of learned Labour Court, the Petitioner herein filed an appeal but the Appellate Court also, after appreciating the evidence of both the parties, dismissed the appeal of Petitioner. 10. While dealing with the issue of unauthorized absence of workman and interference by Labour Court in punishment of dismissal, this Court in the matter of Poshanlal Verma (supra), held in para 13, 14 and 15 as under :- “13. In above connection reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India & Anr. Their Lordships of the Supreme have held that in a departmental enquiry, if allegation of unauthorized absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to rove that the absence is willful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct. Their Lordships further held that absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it would not be willful. Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the report read as follows :- “17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence can not be held to be willful. 18. Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the report read as follows :- “17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence can not be held to be willful. 18. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant.” 14. Similarly, in the matter of Chhel Singh v. M.G.B. Gramin Bank Pali, and Ors, the Supreme Court has held that in order to hold a person guilty for unauthorized absence from duty, the unauthorized absence from duty must be willful and deliberate. In paragraph 15 of the report, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under :- 15.… There was no allegation that the appellant’s unauthorized absence from duty was willful and deliberate. The Inquiry Officer has also not held that appellant’s absence from duty was willful and deliberate. It is neither case of the Disciplinary Authority nor the Inquiry Officer that the medical reports submitted by the appellant were forged or fabricated or obtained for any consideration though he was not ill during the said period. In absence of such evidence and finding, it was not open to the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority to disbelieve the medical certificates issued by the doctors without any valid reason and on the ground of 24 days delay.” 15. In the matter of Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service v. Dashrathbhai Babubhai Brahmakshatriya, the Gujarat High Court has held that notwithstanding the past record of similar misconduct, once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was justifiable cause for the unauthorized absence for which charge-sheet was served and penalty was imposed, the post record of unauthorized absence would lose its significance.” 11. Thus, looking to the facts of the present case and guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court in above referred cases & order of this Court, it is clear that the Petitioner has completely failed to prove this fact that absence of Respondent No.3 is deliberate and willful and, on the other hand, Respondent No.3 has proved this fact that he was ill. This Court is of the firm opinion that the order of Industrial Court is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the finding of this Court in the matter referred herein above. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by both the Courts below. 12. The petition being without any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated `12.10.2006 (Annexure P/1) is hereby confirmed.