Gujarat High Court
Voith Haydro Private Limited vs Sunilkumar Ambaram Paradia on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9587/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9587 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
VOITH HAYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
SUNILKUMAR AMBARAM PARADIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR N P CHAUDHARY(3980) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 04.02.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara in LCB Case No.201 of 2019 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act').
2. Factual Matrix:
2.1. The petitioner is engaged in in-house Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9587/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined manufacturing activities, including grinding, welding, assembling, machining, and employing requisite manpower. The respondent was appointed as a CNC Machine Operator on 16.04.2012 at a monthly salary of ₹42,000/-. On 18.06.2017, at around 3:40 p.m., the respondent was found watching a cricket match online on his mobile phone while operating the machine. A complaint in this regard was lodged by Mr. Dinesh Sharma, the respondent's superior, with the higher authorities. The respondent was called upon to offer an explanation. On the following day, i.e., 19.06.2017, the respondent submitted an apology letter, assuring that such misconduct would not be repeated in the future.
2.2. Subsequently, on 20.06.2017, the respondent was placed under suspension and departmental inquiry was initiated. During the inquiry proceedings, the respondent again submitted an apology, stating that this was his first mistake during his five years of service and requested one opportunity to rectify the same, assuring that such an act would not be repeated. A charge-sheet cum show-cause notice was issued on 17.07.2017, and Mr. Kiran Shah was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the report Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9587/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined submitted by the Inquiry Officer held the respondent guilty of misconduct. Relying on the said report, the petitioner-employer passed an order of dismissal on 31.05.2018.
2.3. The said dismissal order was challenged by the respondent before the learned Labour Court. After adjudicating the matter, the learned Labour Court held that the punishment imposed upon the respondent was disproportionate to the charge and, accordingly, directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages, which is the subject matter of challenged before this Court.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Vasavda for the petitioner and leaned advocate Mr.N.P.Chaudhary for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Vasavada submits that the departmental inquiry was initiated on a very serious charge involving disobedience of rules and regulations during working hours, particularly while machining the Francis Runner Band of the Chuspa Project on the DMC machine. It is submitted that the contracts in question are time-bound, with strict delivery schedules and performance guarantees Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9587/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined relating to power generation for the customers, failing which substantial penalties may be imposed, and the matter may escalate to VOITH Hydro.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Vasavada further submits that the respondent, being a machine operator, was strictly prohibited from carrying any mobile phone or electronic device emitting electromagnetic waves, as per the employer's rules. The respondent, however, disobeyed the said directives and violated the established norms.
It is emphasized that the DMC machine is a heavy- duty CNC 5-Axis machine, imported from Germany at a cost of ₹8.90 Crores, and is used for machining critical components of hydro power plants. The component involved had been procured from a vendor in casting stage and required extensive processing, including casting and heat-treatment cycles, before it could be machined.
4.2. Learned advocate Mr. Vasavada submits that any damage to such a component would necessitate restarting the entire procurement and manufacturing cycle of the turbine assembly, which has a minimum lead time of 12 months, thereby resulting in substantial commercial loss Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9587/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined due to delay in generation. Despite the criticality of the operation, the respondent was found using a mobile phone during working hours. He had placed his smartphone on top of the CNC machine, near the computer screen, and was found watching a cricket match. The presence of such electronic devices near high-precision machines is hazardous due to the potential interference from electromagnetic waves, which could lead to operational malfunctions.
4.3. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Vasavada that the respondent, through written communications dated 19.06.2017 and 24.07.2017, admitted to his misconduct. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted, strictly adhering to the principles of natural justice. Learned advocate Mr. Vasavada submits that though the inquiry was held to be legal and valid, the learned Labour Court committed an error in substituting the penalty of dismissal with reinstatement and awarding 50% back wages. It is contended that the Labour Court ventured into findings that were never challenged by the respondent-workman during the reference proceedings and erroneously held the findings of the inquiry to be perverse. In doing so, the Labour Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9587/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Court exceeded its jurisdiction, and hence, the impugned award deserves to be set aside.
4.4. Learned advocate Mr. Vasavda has relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Vinod Kumar, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 115, and has submitted that once the charges against the respondent are proved, it is not open for the Labour Court to re-appreciate the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer regarding the misconduct committed by the respondent. Learned advocate Mr. Vasavda has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.L. Singla v. Punjab National Bank, reported in AIR (2018) SC 4668, to submit that when the domestic inquiry is held to be legal and proper, it is not necessary for the Labour Court to examine whether the charges are made out afresh.
4.5. In view of the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Vasavda has prayed that the present petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. N.P. Chaudhary, Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9587/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the alleged misconduct was the first misconduct during the respondent's five years of service. Immediately on the next day, the respondent tendered his apology, and during the departmental inquiry as well, he accepted the charges and requested to be given one more opportunity, with an assurance that such misconduct would not be repeated in the future.
5.1. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary that, as per the communications dated 19.06.2017 and 24.07.2017 addressed by the respondent, the machines were operating under the auto mode, and he had merely switched on the mobile phone to check the cricket score. At that time, the Superior Officer, namely Mr. Dineshkumar Sharma, clicked a photograph, which led to the initiation of departmental inquiry.
5.2. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary further submits that the Labour Court has rightly substituted the punishment, considering the petty nature of the charge, and granted only 50% back wages while ordering reinstatement. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary submits that the Labour Court, while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, examined the Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9587/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined proportionality of the punishment and rightly held that for a first-time misconduct, the punishment of dismissal from service was excessive, and hence it was substituted.
5.3. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary submits that the Labour Court has assigned detailed and cogent reasons for its findings, and therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. He prays for dismissal of the present petition.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the Reference was filed challenging the dismissal order dated 26.04.2019 with a prayer for reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent was serving as a CNC operator since 16.04.2012 and, until the alleged misconduct, no prior defaults were brought to the notice of either the Labour Court or this Court.
6.1. The allegation of using a mobile phone and watching a cricket match during working hours was admitted by the respondent through an apology letter as well as during the course of the Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9587/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined departmental inquiry. The apology letter indicates that the machine was set to automatic operation and, during the programming phase, the role of the respondent was merely to monitor the process. It is also not in dispute that the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 18.06.2017, was a weekly off.
6.2. The contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner regarding the sensitivity of the machine and the potential loss in production has not been substantiated by any documentary or oral evidence. Mere pleadings are not sufficient unless supported by contemporaneous records. Therefore, the contention that electromagnetic radiation emitted from a smartphone could damage the CNC machine cannot be accepted in the absence of credible evidence.
7. It is true that, as per the rules, mobile phones are required to be deposited outside the plant premises, and the respondent had carried the same inside without any authorization. However, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that during the five years of the respondent's service, no prior misconduct was ever reported or brought to the notice of the Court. It is also undisputed that the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry were held to be proper, and the Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9587/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Labour Court has rightly proceeded to examine the proportionality of the punishment imposed.
8. The judgments relied upon by the learned advocate, namely, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and M.L. Singla (supra), lay down that it is obligatory for the Labour Court to first decide, as a preliminary issue, whether the domestic inquiry was legal and proper. Based on the outcome of this issue, the Labour Court must then proceed to the next question. In the event the inquiry is held to be legal and proper, the subsequent issue would be whether the punishment of dismissal from service is commensurate with the gravity of the charges or is disproportionate, warranting interference in the quantum of punishment. On examining these aspects, the Labour Court is empowered to interfere with the punishment imposed by the employer by assigning valid reasons and substituting the same. While deciding the question of proportionality, it is not necessary for the Labour Court to re-examine whether the charges are proved or not. The scope of inquiry at that stage is confined to factors such as the nature and gravity of the charges, whether the misconduct is classified as major or minor under the relevant rules, the findings of the inquiry officer, the employee's overall service record, and the Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9587/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined punishment imposed.
9. In the opinion of this Court, when the respondent himself admitted the guilt by tendering an apology on the very next day of the incident, the said misconduct can be treated as a pardonable act of negligence, particularly as it was a first-time lapse during a long tenure of service. The workman had an unblemished service record, and in such circumstances, the learned Labour Court has rightly exercised its powers under Section 11A of the I.D. Act by holding that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, which shocks the conscience of the Court. As the Labour Court, after applying its judicial mind, has substituted the punishment by awarding reinstatement with only 50% back wages, this Court finds the same to be just, proper, and not warranting any interference.
10. Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:02 IST 2025