Bombay High Court
Managing Director Western Maha ... vs State Of Maha & Anr on 29 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 903.wp.77.04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 77 OF 2004
1 John Distilleries Private Limited,
village Chitali, Tq.Rahata,
District Ahmednagar.
2 The Chief Executive,
Chitali Distillery Limited,
Chitali, Tq.Rahata,
District Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1 The State of Maharashtra.
Through Deputy Commissioner Labour,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
(Stands deleted as per today's order)
2 Ratnakar s/o Samual Kopre,
Age : 62 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Chitali, Tq.Rahata,
District Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8029 OF 2004
IN WP/77/2004
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8462 OF 2005
IN WP/77/2004
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri C R Bharswadkar.
AGP for Respondent 1/ State : Shri P.N.Kutti.
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Shri S.V.Natu.
...
::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:27:17 :::
*2* 903.wp.77.04
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 29th September, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 Petitioner No.1/ Western Maharashtra Development
Corporation Limited is deleted and John Distilleries Private Limited is
added as Petitioner No.1 pursuant to the orders of this Court.
Consequentially, Respondent No.1/ State of Maharashtra stands deleted.
2 After the order dated 02.09.2016 was passed by this Court,
the matter was adjourned for considering further submissions of the
learned Advocates.
3 Shri Bharaswadkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioners,
submits that the possibility of settlement was mutually discussed and the
Petitioners have communicated through an email that Rs.40,000/- as a
lump sum quantified compensation will be paid to the Respondent/
Employee and the entire litigation between the parties arising out of the
employment and unemployment of the Respondent/Employee shall be
brought to an end. The amount of Rs.40,000/- will, therefore, be paid to
the Respondent/Employee on or before 15.10.2016 through the banker's
*3* 903.wp.77.04
cheque or demand draft.
4 Shri Natu, learned Advocate for the Respondent/ Employee,
opposes the said proposal and contends that the petition be dismissed.
5 Considering the submissions of Shri Bharaswadkar, it is
apparent that the Petitioner is agreeing to pay 25% back wages to the
Respondent/ Employee. He, however, submits that if the Respondent/
Employee is not agreeable, this petition may be considered on it's own
merits.
6 I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned
Advocates. There is no dispute that the Labour Court has granted relief of
25% back wages to the Respondent/ Employee considering the gravity of
misconduct and has converted the dismissal into discharge. While doing
so, the Labour Court has concluded in paragraph 49 as under:-
"49. But after considering the gravity and seriousness of
the proved misconduct as against the D.E. in the
respect departmental enquiry so proved against him,
so also after taking into consideration the admitted
superannuation of the D.E. at the age of 58 years in
the year 1997 his reaching superannuation already,
the punishment of dismissal so impugned in this
matter is held to be slightly disproportionate to some
extent and not shockingly disproportionate and harsh
one."
*4* 903.wp.77.04
7 It is apparent from the conclusion of the Labour Court
reproduced above, that it has interfered with the punishment on the
ground of it being "slightly disproportionate" and "not shockingly
disproportionate and harsh". Apparently, this conclusion is unsustainable in
law for the reason that the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of
Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank vs. Munna Lal Jain, 2005 (104)
FLR 291, has laid down the law that unless the punishment awarded to
the employee is shockingly disproportionate, there should not be
interference in the quantum of punishment on the ground that the
punishment is slightly disproportionate.
8 However, since the Petitioners have agreed to pay Rs.40,000/-
in order to bring the litigation to an end and render finality to the long
litigation between the parties, I am accepting the proposal of the
Petitioners.
9 As such, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The direction of
the Labour Court in the impugned award dated 04.08.2003 shall stand
modified and shall be replaced by the direction that the Petitioner shall
pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) towards back wages to
Respondent No.2/ Employee on or before 15.10.2016.
*5* 903.wp.77.04
10 Rule is made partly absolute accordingly.
11 The pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand
disposed of.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
