Bombay High Court
Manager,Tobacco ... vs Balu Shriram Patil on 16 August, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5139 OF 1995
The Manager,
R.K.Patel and Company
Tobacco Manufacturers,
Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon PETITIONER
VERSUS
Balu Shriram Patil,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o Bahadarwadi,
Taluka Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon RESPONDENT
Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.S.Shelke, Advocate for the respondent.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 16/08/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner/Management is aggrieved by the award dated
08/12/1994 by which the Labour Court, Jalgaon has allowed Ref.
(IDA) No.20/1988. This Court, while admitting the petition, has
stayed the direction to pay back wages.
2. I have heard the submissions of Mr.Sakolkar and Mr.Shelke,
learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent respectively.
3. Mr.Sakolkar has strenuously criticized the impugned award on
khs/AUGUST 2016/5139-d
the ground that the respondent was unauthorizedly absent from
27/12/1986. He was issued with a notice dated 01/01/1987.
Pursuant to the notice, he executed an undertaking-cum-apology
dated 21/01/1987 and pleaded guilty. The Management, therefore,
was right in dismissing his services. Since he had admitted the
charges, no enquiry was necessary.
4.
To the extent of back wages, it is strenuously submitted by
Mr.Sakolkar that the principle of "no work-no pay" deserves to be
applied in this case. The admission of the respondent dis-entitles
him to back wages. Awarding back wages would mean that the
respondent is being rewarded for remaining unauthorizedly absent.
This would sent a wrong message to the other workers and they
would commit the same acts when they realize that they can get back
wages from the Court.
5. Mr.Shelke submits that the respondent has been working with
the petitioner from 1981. He was absent because of breathing
problems associated with the manufacturing activity of tobacco. He
was working as a "Packer" and was performing the work of packing
tobacco in small paper packets. It is universally known that such
type of industry has occupational hazards and the employees
khs/AUGUST 2016/5139-d
invariably suffer from breathing problems and lung infections.
6. He further submits that the respondent is an illiterate person.
He affixed his thumb impression on the typed copy of the apology
dated 21/01/1987 only with an intention of saving his employment
which was the only source of feeding his family. Had the
Management pardoned him at that stage, further complications
would not have occurred. He was issued with a show cause notice
dated 21/03/1987 and followed by one more notice dated
01/04/1987. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service without
conducting an enquiry after having worked for about six years.
7. He, therefore, submits that the Labour Court has rightly
interfered with the dismissal. Considering that the respondent had
promptly raised an industrial dispute and was before the Labour
Court in 1988 for challenging his dismissal dated 28/03/1987, it
warranted payment of full back wages. He further submits that the
total back wages as directed by the Labour Court would amount to
Rs.1,56,768/- for a period of 8 years and 1 month, considering the
fact that the respondent was reinstated in employment on
30/04/1995.
khs/AUGUST 2016/5139-d
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.
There is no dispute with regard to the dates and sequence of events.
The respondent was absent from 27/12/1986 and the purported
apology is dated 21/01/1987. Even if it is assumed that the
respondent is guilty of unauthorized absenteeism, it would be a
period of about 3 weeks only.
9.
Though the petitioner submits that an apology was tendered on
21/01/1987, things would have ended then and there itself, but for
the act of the petitioner of issuing a show cause notice dated
23/07/1987 and thereafter striking the name of the respondent off
its roles without conducting an enquiry. The explanation that the
respondent had put forth that he was taking treatment from
Dr.Chandu Muthe in between 20/12/1986 and 20/01/1987 due to
breathing problems having inhaled the tobacco powder while at work,
was disregarded by the petitioner.
10. Considering the above, I do not find that the Labour Court has
committed any error in granting reinstatement and continuity of
service to the respondent. The impugned award to this extent cannot
be termed to be perverse or erroneous
khs/AUGUST 2016/5139-d
11. In so far as the back wages are concerned, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Nicholas Piramal India Ltd Vs.
Harisingh, [2015(II) CLR 468] has held that grant of back wages to
the extent of 50% would be fair and proper in order to reduce the
hardships caused to an employee. The total back wages for the
period of unemployment of 8 years and 1 month would be about
Rs.1,60,000/-.
12. Considering that a Class-IV labourer was working in a tobacco
factory and was earning a meager amount as on the date of
termination, I am inclined to grant lump sum back wages for an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- without interest on the condition that the
said amount be paid within 12 (twelve) weeks from today. In the
event of failure of the petitioner in paying the said amount, it would
carry simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the award
08/12/1994. I am partly allowing this petition by modifying the
direction of back wages as above.
13. Rule is made partly absolute accordingly.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/AUGUST 2016/5139-d
