M/S Nav Maharashtra Co-Operative ... vs Nathu Shenphadu Patil
2016 Latest Caselaw 2464 Bom

                                                                             WP/5230/1995
                                                 1


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                   
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 5230 OF 1995




                                                           
     M/s Nav Maharashtra Cooperative
     Fruit Sale Society Ltd., Pachora,
     District Jalgaon, through its
     Manager - Nimba Trimbak Wani.                   ..Petitioner




                                                          
     Versus

     Nathu Shenfadu Patil,
     Age major, R/o Baherpura,




                                               
     Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon.                           ..Respondent
                              ig                 ...
                                     Advocates appearing for :
                                     Petitioner : Shri S.V.Dixit
                                   Respondent : Shri P.S.Agrawal
                            
                                                 ...

                                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated : May 12, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned award dated

10.3.1995, delivered by the Labour Court, Jalgaon in Reference (IDA)

No.35 of 1984.

2. It is undisputed that the reference has been partly allowed and

the petitioner is directed to pay a lump sum compensation of

Rs.53,856/- to the respondent / employee in lieu of loss of future

service and other benefits. The petitioner had deposited an amount

of Rs.25,000/- in this Court pursuant to the order of this Court and

the said amount has been withdrawn by the respondent / employee

WP/5230/1995

after this Court had granted him the liberty.

3. I have heard Shri Dixit, learned Advocate for the petitioner

and Shri Agrawal, learned Advocate for the respondent at length.

Both have taken me through the entire portions of evidence,

reproduced by the Labour Court in its lengthy judgment. I have

considered the conclusions of the Labour Court in the light of the

submissions of the learned Advocates.

4.

It is not disputed that the respondent / employee has not

challenged the impugned award dated 13.2.1995, by which, he was

refused reinstatement and other consequential benefits.

5. In the light of the above, the conclusions of the Labour Court

with regard to the charges proved against the respondent, need not

be disturbed since the Labour Court has held that the respondent is

guilty of dereliction of duty and other minor misconducts which have

been proved against him.

6. Issue, therefore, is as to whether the award of compensation

could be considered to be an appropriate order thereby modifying

the order of punishment issued by the petitioner / employee.

7. It is trite law that unless the punishment appears to be

WP/5230/1995

shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere into the

same. It is equally trite that the scope of Section 11A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, available to a Court or Tribunal to modify an

order of punishment, is also in the backdrop of the punishment

appearing to be shockingly disproportionate.

8. The acts said to have been committed by the respondent have

been proved. The Labour Court has concluded that on account of the

mis-conducts of the respondents, the petitioner suffered monetary

loss, since other workmen have indulged in misappropriation of

funds. Those workmen have also been dealt with by the petitioner in

disciplinary proceedings.

9. In the light of the above, I find that the impugned award could

be termed as being a result of misplaced sympathy shown by the

Labour Court towards the respondent. The Labour Court, therefore,

could not have granted compensation to the respondent for an

amount of Rs.53,856/-.

10. Notwithstanding the above, it cannot be ignored that the

respondent / employee is practically 81 years old today. He has

withdrawn Rs.25,000/- with the leave of this Court. As such, though I

am interfering with the impugned award, I am restraining the

petitioner from recovering the amount of Rs.25,000/- from the

WP/5230/1995

respondent considering his age passage of time and the hardship that

would be caused to him.

11. In the light of the above, the impugned award dated 13.3.1995

stands modified by concluding that the respondent was not entitled

for any compensation. However, the petitioner is precluded from

recovering the amount of Rs.25,000/- withdrawn by the respondent.

12.

This petition is, therefore, partly allowed and Rule is made

partly absolute in the above terms.

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

...

akl/d