Bombay High Court
Mr. Santosh Vithoba Kode vs M/S. Shipping Services on 4 August, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:33305
10.WP.8865.2017.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8865 OF 2017
Santosh Vithoba Kode .. Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Shipping Services .. Respondent
....................
Mr. G. J. Ramchandani, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Purav a/w. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocates for
Respondent.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 04, 2025
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Ramchandani, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms. Purav, learned Advocate for Respondent.
2. This is case where there are concurrent judgements dated 04.08.2018 (passed by Fourth Labour Court, Mumbai) and 29.09.2015 (passed in Revision by the Industrial Court) rejecting the claim of Petitioner - employee. Claim of Petitioner was that he was in continuous service of Respondent - Company for 23 years and between 14.01.2013 and 30.01.2013 expressing loss of confidence in him, he was issued notice of termination alongwith all appropriate dues due and payable to him by virtue of his termination.
3. Mr. Ramchandani would submit that both the learned Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in dismissing the Complaint and Revision Application filed by Petitioner. He would submit that 1 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2025 21:25:19 :::
10.WP.8865.2017.doc Petitioner had been in continuous and uninterrupted service for the last 23 years. He would submit that Petitioner had an unblemished record during his tenure with no disciplinary action or misconduct against him. He would submit that as Respondent had to shut down their import Department where Petitioner was in service, he was directed to work in the Export Department where he lacked knowledge and experience as no training was imparted to him with respect to the said work and hence no work was assigned to him. He would submit that both the subordinate Courts have failed to consider that Respondent failed to maintain muster roll with respect to attendance of employees to prove Petitioner's absence. He would submit that notice issued to Petitioner was illegal as no retrenchment compensation or notice pay was paid to him. He would submit that no enquiry was conducted before termination. Hence he would urge the Court to allow the Writ Petition and quash and set aside both impugned judgements and orders dated 04.08.2014 and 29.09.2015.
4. Ms. Purav, learned Advocate for Respondent would argue in support of both the impugned judgements passed by the Courts below. She would submit that services of Petitioner are terminated by following the due process of law. She would submit that Petitioner was working as a senior clerk in the Import Department / Section of the Company. She would submit that from 01.12.2012 due to insufficient workload, he was directed to work in Export Department.
2 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2025 21:25:19 :::
10.WP.8865.2017.doc However, he refused to work in the said Department. She would submit that the Company issued him several letters in this regard but Petitioner refused to accept them. She would submit that from March
- 2012, Petitioner used to mark his attendance in the morning on the Biometric Attendance System and used to leave the office premises for the remaining hours of duty which is evident from the fact that no leaving time was even marked on the Biometric Attendance Machine for more than eight months. Therefore due to Petitioner's consistent misconduct, Company lost confidence in him and terminated his services with effect from 14.01.2014 after giving him adequate opportunity. She would submit that Company paid compensation to Petitioner at the rate of 15 days salary per year for his completed years of service and all other statutory dues by cheque alongwith his termination letter dated 12.01.2013. She would submit that misconduct of Petitioner was serious such that the employer was not bound to issue charge-sheet to him and hold any enquiry in the above facts. She would submit that the aforesaid misconduct was admitted by the Petitioner in his own evidence and cross-examination which led to the passing of the twin concurrent orders. Hence, she would urge the Court to dismiss the Petition.
5. I have heard Mr. Ramchandani, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms. Purav, learned Advocate for Respondent and with their able assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made 3 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2025 21:25:19 :::
10.WP.8865.2017.doc by the learned Advocates have received due consideration of this Court.
6. Specific charges were alleged in the notice issued which when seen from the evidence on record, stand proved on the basis of deposition of Petitioner himself namely; refusal on the part of Petitioner to work; refusal to accept letters of communicating different orders; refusal to attend work in the office in morning after marking his presence on Biometric Attendance Machine and leaving the office for the remaining duration of his shift / duty. This continued admittedly as per Petitioner's own admissions in cross-examination for more than 8 months. The Company produced documentary evidence of the Biometric Attendance which did not have the Office Leaving time earmarked for more than 8 months.
7. Record shows that in his deposition as also suggestions put to him in cross-examination, Petitioner has categorically accepted his aforesaid misconduct and behaviour of his of not spending the day in office and leaving the office premises immediately after marking his biometric attendance. Complainant's act of insubordination and getting salary without doing any work thus over a consistently long period, led to loss of confidence in the Petitioner and the resultant action.
8. Record shows that Petitioner was given opportunity to 4 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2025 21:25:19 :::
10.WP.8865.2017.doc defend the charges against him which formed part of the termination notice which was issued to him despite which Petitioner did not respond thereto or take any steps in that regard. Points of determination framed by the Labour Court have been effectively answered on the basis of incriminating material available on record, rather incriminating evidence in the form of his attendance record and deposition of Petitioner himself wherein he admitted to the act of misconduct of insubordination of leaving the office everyday after marking his attendance in the morning. Record further negates the claim of Petitioner that he served the Company for 23 years. In the Respondent Company, he worked for a little over four and half years tenure during which his output was NIL. Petitioner did not produce any material / evidence on record to show his work tenure of 23 years and refused to accept the statutory dues paid by the Respondent or his termination.
9. Grievance of Petitioner that he was not paid any dues is also found to be incorrect on the basis of material evidence placed on record and considered by the Labour Court thoroughly. In Revision, the learned Industrial Court has done adequate justice to the case of Petitioner by examining his complaint in the widest possible sphere despite the restriction and amplitude under Section 44 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but did not find favour with the Petitioner. Admissions given by Petitioner himself to the suggestions put to him in 5 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2025 21:25:19 :::
10.WP.8865.2017.doc cross-examination have been found sufficient to prove his misconduct which is borne out from the record. It is seen that despite Petitioner having been repeatedly called back to the work, he still refused to join work. These misdemeanors and misconduct of Petitioner have been adequately dealt with in paragraph No.15 onwards of the decision of the Industrial Court in Revision with regard to the material on record.
10. No case whatsoever has been made out by Petitioner to seek interference of this Court for dislodging the findings returned either by the learned Labour Court or the learned Industrial Court. Both judgments and orders dated 04.08.2014 and 29.09.2015 are appropriate and well reasoned which cannot be faulted with considering the evidence on record which has been considered by the Labour Court thoroughly.
11. Resultantly Writ Petition fails. Both judgments and orders dated 04.08.2014 and 29.09.2015 are upheld and confirmed. Petition is dismissed.
12. Needless to state that if Petitioner's dues have not been paid / received by him, the same shall be paid over to him within a period of two (2) weeks from today by the Respondent - Company since one of the grievance advanced by Mr. Ramchandani is that his dues should be paid to him.
13. All contentions of Petitioner are expressly kept open in so far 6 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2025 21:25:19 :::
10.WP.8865.2017.doc as acceptance of his dues at this stage are concerned since it is argued across the bar that the dues are not computed in accordance with law. In that regard Petitioner shall be at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings strictly in accordance with law as available to him.
14. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Digitally signed HARSHADA by HARSHADA HANUMANT HANUMANT SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2025.08.05 17:02:36 +0530 7 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2025 21:25:19 :::