Bombay High Court
Bhagwandas Shankarlal Rathi vs Officiating G.M. Model Mills ... on 7 October, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp2682.08.J.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2682 OF 2008
Bhagwandas s/o Shankarlal Rathi,
Aged 60 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o 12/A, Model Mills' Staff
Quarters, Near Ganeshpeth
Police Station, Nagpur. ....... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
The Officiating General Manager,
Model Mills, Nagpur, Umrer Road,
Nagpur. ....... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.A. Kalbande, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri R.B. Puranik, Advocate for Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th OCTOBER, 2016.
DATE: 7
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] In B.I.R. Case No.49 of 1988 filed under Section 79 of
the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, the Labour Court
recorded the finding that the complainant has failed to establish
that the enquiry conducted against him was illegal and unfair.
It also records the finding that the punishment of suspension for a
period of four days is not found to be disproportionate to the act
of misconduct. It further records a finding that the complainant is
unable to point out as to how the findings recorded on merits of
wp2682.08.J.odt 2/5
the charges by the Enquiry Officer are perverse. The application
was dismissed by the Labour Court on 05.01.2006.
2] In appeal B.I.R. No.4 of 2006 filed under Section 84
of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, the Industrial Court
records a finding that the enquiry conducted and the penalty
imposed upon the petitioner is found to be just, fair and
reasonable. Hence, the appeal has been dismissed on 07.02.2008.
3] The complainant is before this Court in writ petition.
4] The enquiry was conducted against the petitioner for
certain charges of misconduct levelled against him and the
charge-sheet dated 07.10.1985 was signed by the Factory
Manager. The petitioner was working as Departmental Assistant in
the Engineering Department. During the period of enquiry, he was
placed under suspension from 07.10.1985 to 02.11.1988, the
petitioner being found guilty of the charges levelled against him,
was imposed a punishment of suspension for a period of four days
from 13.02.1988 to 16.02.1988. The complainant joined the
service on 17.02.1988 and retired on attaining the age of
superannuation during the year 2005-2006. The establishment of
wp2682.08.J.odt 3/5
the respondent has also been closed.
5] Shri Kalbande, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has invited my attention to para 6 of his complaint
wherein it is alleged that the charge-sheet dated 07.10.1995 was
issued to him by the Factory Manager, who had no authority to
issue such charge-sheet. The respondent in reply to this averment
stated that the charge-sheet was issued by the Factory Manager
under the sanction and direction of the Chief Executive
Officer/General Manager, the non-applicant No.2, who was the
appointing authority. Shri Kalbande has further invited my
attention to the averment made in ground No.2 of the petition on
page 3 which is reproduced below:
2) The learned courts below have failed to observe
that respondent / management has not supplied
necessary documents i.e. Memo from Ring Frame,
B. & D., Production report of Ring Frame and Loom
shed and Zero-Zero machine which was demanded by
the petitioner. The petitioner was also not supplied
mechanical workshop progress report of workers of first
shift and list of authorised persons doing electrical
work. The same documents were necessary to counter
the charges against the petitioner but all these
wp2682.08.J.odt 4/5
documents were not supplied to him.
Therefore observations and finding given by the courts
below are contrary to the record and evidences.
6] None of the courts below have recorded any finding
on the question of authority of the Factory Manager.
The petitioner has not pointed out his oral evidence on this aspect
of the matter. The parties have not lead any evidence on this
aspect as well as on the aspect of non-supply of documents.
The evidence has not been brought to my notice in respect of
ground No.2 reproduced above. It is not pointed out as to how the
documents alleged to have been non-supplied were relevant for
deciding the charges in question. It is also not pointed out as to
whether the findings are based upon the documents which
according to the petitioner were not supplied. In the absence of
any such evidence, I do not find any perversity in the findings
recorded by the courts below.
7] The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
NSN
wp2682.08.J.odt 5/5
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : Uploaded on : 10.10.2016.
N.S. Nikhare, P.A.
